What is free will?

[Dodgey]

Firstly I apologize for my syntax where I was explaining solipsism. I used the terms we and our instead of I and my.

Secondly that is not the defination of solipsism as shown here and here. Solipsism is not idealism though idealism could be seen as an extreme form of solipsism depending on how you interprete idealism.

If you want to bring objectivity and subjectivity into it then physicalism would be objective, I'm not sure if that is what you ment however you didn't make it clear.

So are you arguing about solipsism or idealism, they are different, which one is it.

[TeeGee]

Solipsism: is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

Idealism: idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideasâ€â€especially beliefs and valuesâ€â€shape society. As an ontological doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[2] Idealism thus rejects physicalist and dualist theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind.

Dualism: dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are not identical. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism, in the mind–body problem.

Physicalism: physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical. Physicalism is a form of ontological monismâ€â€a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.

Solipsism = a form of Idealism. I'm arguing for BOTH. All that is perceived is a mental construct and that there is NOTHING outside of the mind. I go EVEN FURTHER to argue that AS AN EPISTOMOLOGICAL form, I CAN ONLY KNOW MY MIND EXISTS and therefore I DOUBT all OTHER MINDS; that is called SOLIPSISM.

The question being raised here is about compatibilism vs incompatiblism regarding free will. I am an INcompatibilist and do NOT believe the physical and mental can allow things like free will to exist because of the physical laws that govern our brains and bodies. BUT IF I REJECT ALL THE PHYSICAL aspects of existence and claim that ONLY MINDS/SUBJECTIVE SELF exists and that everything else is an illusion, free will CAN exist.

I go even further to say that NOBODY ELSE is sure to have a mind except ME. Cognito ergo sum "I think therefore I am". In my world, only I KNOW I EXIST and I HAVE A MIND.

[rtxoff]

I go even further to say that NOBODY ELSE is sure to have a mind except ME. Cognito ergo sum "I think therefore I am". In my world, only I KNOW I EXIST and I HAVE A MIND.

What is free will worth within such an existence?

[CaptainKipard]

TeeGee, it looks like you're only saying that freewill is potentially possible if solipsism is accurate because you don't know whether a solipsistic mind is governed by rules.

I actually have no problem with that, but that's not really an argument for or against it. It's just speculation.

[Dispatcher]

Are physical laws compelling circumstances?

Where do you draw the line? You can choose to stay in the path of a flood or attempt to get out of its way. However, if you fall on planet Earth, you have no choice; you will fall until you land on or in something.

[rtxoff]

I have a good test for all solipsists, find out how real your world really is and jump out of the 4th floor of a building

[Godot]

I have a good test for all solipsists, find out how real your world really is and jump out of the 4th floor of a building

But only with someone or something that surprises them at the moment they jump out of the window ...

as we know from the Hithhikers guide to the galaxy that this is an important prerequisite to miss the ground

http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/howtofly.php

[TeeGee]

Where do you draw the line? You can choose to stay in the path of a flood or attempt to get out of its way. However, if you fall on planet Earth, you have no choice; you will fall until you land on or in something.

Not unless that's what EXPECTATION has taught you...

How does my line of thought help my everyday life? Not much; it just allows me to put things into perspective.

[CaptainKipard]

Where do you draw the line? You can choose to stay in the path of a flood or attempt to get out of its way. However, if you fall on planet Earth, you have no choice; you will fall until you land on or in something.

I'm talking more about how light enters your eyes, and how signals are relayed in your brain, etc. I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by "compelling circumstances" so that I can work out if that kind of definition describes something that can exist.

[-Velocity-]

What explanation is easier-

1) Only my mind exists, and it is somehow fooled into believing that a universe and other minds exist. This requires some higher level of existence where the mind exists. How does this illusionary reality come into being? That probably requires some higher beings too, to formulate all these physical laws and create some universe that is self-consistent enough to fool me.

2) The world is exactly as it appears to be. Minds come into existence through emergent physical processes that are based off of simple physical laws applied across a vast distance of space and time. What my senses perceive is the world as it truly exists, at least within the limits of shortcuts taken by certain information processing techniques applied by the brain (leading rise to things like optical illusions- and even optical illusions can be identified with close or external inspection).

As long as causality is obeyed by the sum of our universe plus any other realities which might (but probably don't) influence it (such as "God" or the supernatural), then logical reasoning holds. While I can't PROVE that beyond a doubt other minds exist, I can be 99.9999999% certain that they do. It's hard to see how TeeGee can find such viewpoints useful, as we have to act on those things that we believe to be highly likely or almost certain as though they ARE certain. A philosophy that denies the existence of the universe and external minds is simply useless.

[TeeGee]

What explanation is easier-

1) Only my mind exists, and it is somehow fooled into believing that a universe and other minds exist. This requires some higher level of existence where the mind exists. How does this illusionary reality come into being? That probably requires some higher beings too, to formulate all these physical laws and create some universe that is self-consistent enough to fool me.

2) The world is exactly as it appears to be. Minds come into existence through emergent physical processes that are based off of simple physical laws applied across a vast distance of space and time. What my senses perceive is the world as it truly exists, at least within the limits of shortcuts taken by certain information processing techniques applied by the brain (leading rise to things like optical illusions- and even optical illusions can be identified with close or external inspection).

As long as causality is obeyed by the sum of our universe plus any other realities which might (but probably don't) influence it (such as "God" or the supernatural), then logical reasoning holds. While I can't PROVE that beyond a doubt other minds exist, I can be 99.9999999% certain that they do. It's hard to see how TeeGee can find such viewpoints useful, as we have to act on those things that we believe to be highly likely or almost certain as though they ARE certain. A philosophy that denies the existence of the universe and external minds is simply useless.

Not it's not. You take it on blind faith that others outside of your own mind exist. Nobody can prove they are real to you, you just believe it without any evidence to back it up. You only have 1 voice in your head and can only see the world through YOUR own senses and perceptions. You are alone in your skull. Period.

I think you aren't really giving my point serious thought... the ONLY truth in your existence, one that you can say with 100% certainty, is that you exist. You don't really know anything else.

And your comment about where minds come from a higher existence... gimme a break dude. You have dreams where you fly, walk in lava, breathe in space and .... gold bricks while eating skittles yet you never DOUBT the reality of the dream when you have them. Minds/thought/emotions etc are real because we experience them FIRST HAND. That is the ONLY reason we are aware of them in the first place!

Try to explain to your computer what an emotion is without using "like"... it's impossible. A computer is 100% objective and it can never understand these subjective processes because it can't experience them 1st hand. Sort of puts a wrench in what is actually TRUE or not doesn't it? If what we KNOW exists cannot be proven by objective study and teaching... is it true?

What statement is easier to believe in?

1) I doubt I exist and have a mind

2) I don't know with 100% certainty that other minds exist

Edited October 14, 2014 by TeeGee

[CaptainKipard]

TeeGee are you trying to convince the figments of your imagination that they don't really exist? Anyway solipsism is way off topic.

[Francesco]

This is just a baseless assertion, which is bad enough, but it's also demonstrably wrong. As I already posted, neurological studies show that awareness of making a decision follows the decision being made by the brain. For the love of christ I posted that link in the very same post you're responding to. What are you doing?

That study is interesting, but predicted the testers' choice in 60% of the cases, for a basic task, so it's not conclusive evidence.

In general, I'm wary of the idea of explaining consciousness through brain activity.

This is because I think the problem of free will is the problem of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

If it's the brain making decisions, and consciousness is only the product of said brain activity, or the name we give to the sum of the brain's activities - and "free will" is thus an illusion that you get after 4 or whatever seconds, when the choice has already been made - then how do lower forms of life without a nervous system (e.g. bacteria) make decisions?

[N_las]

That study is interesting, but predicted the testers' choice in 60% of the cases, for a basic task, so it's not conclusive evidence.

If the sample size is large enough, then even a right prediction in only 51% of all cases can be conclusive.

[Francesco]

If the sample size is large enough, then even a right prediction in only 51% of all cases can be conclusive.

Not really. This is not a presidential election.

[ZetaX]

Not really. This is not a presidential election.

What has this to do with the matter¿ N_las made a statistical statement, not a sociological one.

[N_las]

Not really. This is not a presidential election.

But it is true. If you have a sample size of only 10 experiments, then a correct prediction in 60% of cases would be insignificant. Thats just 6 right predictions, while pure change would give 5. The probability of getting 60% "by accident" will be pretty high.

But if you have a sample size of 1000 experiments, then a correct prediction in 60% of cases would be way less probable to occure by accident. With a large enough sample size, even a right prediction rate of 51% could be shown to be conclusive.

EDIT: The larger your sample size, the nearer the probable outcome will be at 50% (if we can't predict correctly). With a large enough sample size, even a deviation of 0.01% "by accident" can be highly improbable. So a deviation of 0.02% can be conclusive.

If the used methode is only working in some cases, than you have to ramp up your sample size, so that even 60% can be conclusive.

If you have a method that can cure cancer in 1 of 100 patients, you can prove that effect with a large enough sample size. The claim that you have to cure "more than 80% of patients" to prove your method is false. You have to show that with your method, more patients recover than without. And you have to make your sample size big enough to show that this effect isn't pure probability.

Basically, you can prove that your cancer cure works, even if you only heal 1% of your patients.

In the same way someone can prove that choice-prediction on the human brain works, even if its only in 60% of cases.

EDIT 2: On the other hand, if you claim that the sample size doesn't matter, only the percentage of right predictions, than I will use only one experiment. I may predict his choice correctly. Thats a 100% sucess rate. Would you be convinced by that? Probably not.

Edited October 14, 2014 by N_las

[Francesco]

Depends on what you mean by significant.

In the context of said study, it was about predicting whether the tester was going to add or subtract some numbers.

A choice between A or B - not the highest level of our intellectual abilities.

It's food for thought, absolutely, but far from being a grand theory of consciousness, or from being conclusive proof that free will doesn't exist.

Easy with the statistics. A 1% cancer cure rate can be as easily ascribed to placebo or spontaneous remission.

[N_las]

Easy with the statistics. A 1% cancer cure rate can be as easily ascribed to placebo or spontaneous remission.

Yes, and I specified that. I said: "You have to show that with your method, more patients recover than without. And you have to make your sample size big enough to show that this effect isn't pure probability."

So if the control group in a double-blind study shows a recovery rate of 0.5%, and the test group has a rate of 1%, we can prove that the cure is working, IF THE SAMPLE SIZE IS LARGE ENOUGH.

You can't just use ONLY the percentage numbers to make an argument about significance.

Depends on what you mean by significant.

Of course I mean in the statistical sense significant. The significance of this study in a philosophical sense is not important for me.

Edited October 14, 2014 by N_las

[Francesco]

Uhmm yeah, ok, whatever, but we're not discussing cancer treatments here - for which if there's a 60% success rate, then alleluja!

What's you point, then?

[Rakaydos]

Try to explain to your computer what an emotion is without using "like"... it's impossible. A computer is 100% objective and it can never understand these subjective processes because it can't experience them 1st hand.

Anger: A mental state that biases behavure toward aggressive and hostile actions. Often bypasses higher thought to improve reaction time and psychologcal limits.

Fear: A mental state that biases behavure toward self preservation. May bypass higher thought, resulting in faster responce but sometimes seemingly illogical "self preservation" that does nothing of the sort.

Love: A mental state of an individual that becomes associated with another entity. Biases behavure so as to maintain and strengthen the mental state, often by seeking to elicit a complementaty "love" responce in the associated entity. Originlly evolved to support procreation drives, but easily mistargeted.

Any emotion is simply a mental shortcut, a macro that can be programmed into a sufficently complex machine.

[ZetaX]

Uhmm yeah, ok, whatever, but we're not discussing cancer treatments here - for which if there's a 60% success rate, then alleluja!

What's you point, then?

Actually, I want to give that question right back at you. You just randomly claim there is a fundamental difference between brain research and cancer research that goes as deep as intervening with statistics itself.

[Francesco]

Actually, I want to give that question right back at you. You just randomly claim there is a fundamental difference between brain research and cancer research that goes as deep as intervening with statistics itself.

"randomly"

not brain research, consciousness research.

brain research as applied to consciousness research, maybe.

we can define a cancer pretty accurately, these days.

on the contrary, we can't (yet) define "consciousness" and its boundaries so well.

as I stated, I think the problem of free will is really the problem of consciousness.

given the enormous implications of something like the absence of free will, I hardly see how we could solve this with statistics alone.

[ZetaX]

What are those "enormous implications" of its absense then¿ There is probably not a single social thing that changes if we prove it to be nonexistent; there are probably more implications if it would actually exist.

[Francesco]

What are those "enormous implications" of its absense then¿ There is probably not a single social thing that changes if we prove it to be nonexistent; there are probably more implications if it would actually exist.

Dude, really? What about the judicial system?