CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego

by Terry 159 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  Surely, you see how fruitless a position that is and how little merit it holds in our discussion?

  Surely no more pointless that you arguing free will doesn't exist when you didn't even know the definition.

  I started a topic (see above Title) and presented the discussion with an introductory statement followed by a question.

  You seem to disagree and have offered counter-arguments.

  Here is an example of a "definition" you have offered of Free Will:

  The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions; The doctrine that human beings (and possibly other beings, such angels or higher animals) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free_will

  You've chosen a Doctrine (?) which seems to apply equally to angels and higher animals!

  Now, compare the above definition to my original Topic Header post and notice what main question I ask:

  Are we not confusing our creative imagination with actual selective decision making?

  Could it not be our mind's ego at work creating the false illusion WE ARE IN CONTROL of our "choices"?

  If we FULLY KNEW everything that makes us tick, would we not see our day to day activity (except in the case of accidents) as foreordained

  to certain extent?

  What PER CENT of your "choices" are really and truly FREE choices??
• 

  Terry

  I'm arguing from OBJECTIVE commonality which is to say MUST HAVE PRACTICAL APPLICATION in the same world we all share.

  That's not what objective means.

  We are all entitled to our own opinions but not to our own "reality". What is OBJECTIVE is the same for everybody regardless of opinion.

  Just as what is "true" conforms to reality. Opinion isn't reality. Opinion is subjective. Objectivity is practical. A=A.
• 

  gubberningbody

  ...Terry, the definition says "...external forces....". I suppose by that definition if one restricts the external to that outside the body, then perhaps it holds true, however that's not really what people think of when they discuss 'free will'.
• 

  JWoods

  I have thought about this quite a bit.... I think the universe is a deterministic machine and that free will is an illusion. It's only the perception of free will that matters, so this conclusion doesn't "bother" me.

  Too bad that "thinking about that quite a bit" was a waste of time, if everything in the universe is actually deterministic.

  Again, I want to point out that modern science does not agree that the universe is a deterministic machine. The seeming macroscopic deterministic qualities that we see on a large scale are really probabilistic results that cover up the underlying quantum mechanics.

  You could choose the pre-destiny in front of you, but only a great fool would reach for what he is given and you are not a great fool, so you must choose the free-will in front of me.

  Respectfully, I really have no idea what in the world that was supposed to mean.
• 

  notverylikely

  Behind all the words is a need to engage in this debate; the need is an emotional one.

  Why do you presume there is a "need"? A preference will suffice just as well. I also could decide i would rather play golf on such a lovely day. Alas, however, I choose to stay at work and keep my job.

  The information you have provided shows that very little of what we do or refrain from doing is controlled by our conscious mind. Unconscious forces compel us to act as we do.

  That study was specifically referring to physical actions. Think reflexes, taking a step, etc.

  Who else could we possibly be?

  What we choose to be. Some people chose to eat poorly and be overweight. I once made those choices. I thought and decided to eat better and work out.

  I also once chose to smoke. I have since decided to act against my physical addiction to nicotine and quit.

  The words are written to satisfy a need that goes much deeper than content of this subject.

  Perhaps a preference, but not necessarily a need.

  I speculate that even at the quantum level, which appears to us to be truly random, is NOT random. If the universe state could be restored, even quantum events would play out exactly as before.

  See the slit experiment.

  Even if quantum events did NOT play out exactly as before, would it matter? Quantum uncertainty has no real bearing on the macroscopic world.

  Quite the reverse, quantum events are the building blocks of the macroscopic world.
• 

  gubberningbody

  ...talking to myself....

  Now taking Lebit's findings as fact one could leave off with condemnation and move on to reengineering the automata of the self so that the self would act as our "Free Won't" would have it.

  Now, granted there is some work towards realizing the idea that the quantum enters into the macro, however that's still speculative...

  Although it's interesting to read about...

  "QUANTUM TO THE CORE
  Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, argues that the highest function of life—consciousness—is likely a quantum phenomenon too. This is illustrated, he says, through anesthetics. The brain of a patient under anesthesia continues to operate actively, but without a conscious mind at work. What enables anesthetics such as xenon or isoflurane gas to switch off the conscious mind?

  Hameroff speculates that anesthetics “interrupt a delicate quantum process” within the neurons of the brain. Each neuron contains hundreds of long, cylindrical protein structures, called microtubules, that serve as scaffolding. Anesthetics, Hameroff says, dissolve inside tiny oily regions of the microtubules, affecting how some electrons inside these regions behave.

  He speculates that the action unfolds like this: When certain key electrons are in one “place,” call it to the “left,” part of the microtubule is squashed; when the electrons fall to the “right,” the section is elongated. But the laws of quantum mechanics allow for electrons to be both “left” and “right” at the same time, and thus for the micro­tubules to be both elongated and squashed at once. Each section of the constantly shifting system has an impact on other sections, potentially via quantum entanglement, leading to a dynamic quantum-mechanical dance.

  It is in this faster-than-light subatomic communication, Hameroff says, that consciousness is born. Anesthetics get in the way of the dancing electrons and stop the gyration at its quantum-mechanical core; that is how they are able to switch consciousness off.

  It is still a long way from Hameroff’s hypo­thetical (and experimentally unproven) quantum neurons to a sentient, conscious human brain. But many human experiences, Hameroff says, from dreams to subconscious emotions to fuzzy memory, seem closer to the Alice in Wonderland rules governing the quantum world than to the cut-and-dried reality that classical physics suggests. Discovering a quantum portal within every neuron in your head might be the ultimate trip through the looking glass."

  http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts
• 

  Terry

  exercising and using free will does not imply achievement of the end result.

  You are now slicing pretty thin! You differentiate between "exercising" and "using". Amazing accomplishment!

  I REPEAT: Free Speech (like FREE WILL) is a useless mental construct if it is not employed.

  You've sought to deflect from that by creating a middle zone whereby one "tries" but "fails". (Marathon example.)

  I supposed I could count that as a partial admission on your part, but, I won't.

  Bring to mind, if you will, my argument about the "FREE" part of Free Will is that we may well be INTERNALLY pushed by genetic predisposition toward behavior which we (unaware of that inherent proclivity) call our "choice." Somehow we have avoided discussing that by running your marathon and not reaching the end of it!
• 

  drwtsn32

  Too bad that "thinking about that quite a bit" was a waste of time, if everything in the universe is actually deterministic.

  It's just a thought exercise -- not a waste of time. Even if the universe is truly deterministic, it doesn't mean everything is pointless. Life is not pointless or without value because evolution happened.

  Again, I want to point out that modern science does not agree that the universe is a deterministic machine. The seeming macroscopic deterministic qualities that we see on a large scale are really probabilistic results that cover up the underlying quantum mechanics.

  I speculate that perhaps quantum events are not truly random. We could find out if we had the universe state save/restore machine around. And like I said above, perhaps it wouldn't matter anyway if the quantum world IS truly random, as those events don't really affect us at a macroscopic level.

  (Like I said this is just something kind of fun to think about.. I have already considered quantum mechanics and how it may be something that disproves the idea of the universe being deterministic... I am playing devil's advocate a bit and considering the possibility that quantum events are not really random.)
• 

  notverylikely

  The uncertainty principle applies to the realm of the subatomic. It doesn't enter into the Newtonian realm in actual practice. This is the mistake many make with regard to these things.

  Subatomic interaction influence the macroscoic world all the time. Otherwise, the newtonion math defining gravity would perfectly describe the orbit or mercury around the sun, but it does not. It also does not describe gravitational lensing which occurs at the photonic level. Both are macroscopic observable events.
• 

  Terry

  Let's go back to the marathon example. I might think i can run a marathon. You disagree. We have both exercised free will.

  Hardly!

  What you "think" is subjective. My disagreement is objective. How so?

  Thinking is private, unseen and personal to the extent it remains interior. Once you place it out in the open (in writing or speech) it objectifies because others can access it and react.

  As far as the "exercise of free will" we are back to square one, aren't we?

  What you call the "exercise of free will" never seems to leave the interior of your skull! You say "I might think I can run a marathon."

  You call that the "exercise"?