Philosophy Discussion Forums

Free Will Sceptics wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 12:50 pm Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

My question is the following: On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

In short: can you escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Perhaps the issue is that you are neglecting the question 'why' the world exists as basis for the idea that physical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. the ultimate really real)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 7th, 1992, 3:29 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

You need to answer yes or no. And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.

I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 11:44 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 4th, 2021, 6:24 pm When a person speaks of 'I' what does this refer to?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 5th, 2021, 12:23 pm Many of the questions you pose in this topic would require many thousands of words to consider them properly, and even then, the results may end up as purely speculative. But this one is more straightforward, I think. When a person speaks of "I", I think they normally mean to refer to their own conscious-mind. [Their nonconscious minds are rarely considered, and even more rarely included.] Depending on context, this might include their physical body too.

chewybrian wrote: ↑December 5th, 2021, 7:47 pm I think you pretty well nailed it. What occurs to me is that this implies that just about everyone, just about all the time, is referring to the same "I" of Descartes. They mean their own ego or personality, their will, their opinions and preferences and prejudices, their faculty of choice. Even those who say that free will is an illusion or that they are part of one universal consciousness or whatever will turn right around and use "I" to mean just what Descartes or the existentialists would say it means, which is the essence that supplants mere existence as we gain the ability to choose for ourselves.

I wonder if this just tells us that Descartes used the same ill-defined "I" that we all use every day, with the same lack of consideration as to what "I" actually represents?

That seems to be a live possibility. We can take either stance and nobody can honestly say we are right or wrong. When we are thinking hard about it, many of us conclude that free will, and even the sense of "I" are illusions. When we are focused on other things, we tend to go with our senses rather than abstract notions, and we do all (I believe) have the sense of "I", whether the sense is real or illusory.

Either way, if we are being next level objective, I think we are likely to conclude that we must withhold judgement until (if ever) all the facts are in. I'd say the *real* answer is no answer, but I side with Descartes anyway.

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 2:20 pm

Free Will Sceptics wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 12:50 pm Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

My question is the following: On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

In short: can you escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Perhaps the issue is that you are neglecting the question 'why' the world exists as basis for the idea that physical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. the ultimate really real)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 7th, 1992, 3:29 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

You need to answer yes or no. And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.

I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?

Simply put, either answer the simple yes or no question I'm asking you, or I have zero interest in interacting with you. Are you interested in interacting with me? If so, it should be easy to make an investment of answering a yes/no question. You can't do that, I've no interest. You're not cooperative enough or capable enough to have a conversation with.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 2:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.

I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?

Simply put, either answer the simple yes or no question I'm asking you, or I have zero interest in interacting with you. Are you interested in interacting with me? If so, it should be easy to make an investment of answering a yes/no question. You can't do that, I've no interest. You're not cooperative enough or capable enough to have a conversation with.

Why did you pose a counter question? And what is the basis for the 'demand' of an answer to that question?

1. according to free will sceptics, it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
2. whether people believe in free will or not within a purely physical world is therefore irrelevant.

I could argue that I understand that some people believe in all kind of things, which I already did with my suggestion of people believing that there is a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, which you confirmed to be a correct example with regard your question.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pm And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

The scope of our 'interaction' is the simple question how you can possibly justify a belief in free will while in the same time claiming that you are a materialist that believes that mind originates from the physical and that physical reality is ultimate and 'real'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

...

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My personal opinion whether people could 'believe' in free will while in the same time believing that physical reality is all there is (that reality is 'real'), is irrelevant. It wouldn't help to discover an answer to the original question: how you are able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist.

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 9th, 2021, 4:30 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 2:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.

I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?

Simply put, either answer the simple yes or no question I'm asking you, or I have zero interest in interacting with you. Are you interested in interacting with me? If so, it should be easy to make an investment of answering a yes/no question. You can't do that, I've no interest. You're not cooperative enough or capable enough to have a conversation with.

Why did you pose a counter question? And what is the basis for the 'demand' of an answer to that question?

1. according to free will sceptics, it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
2. whether people believe in free will or not within a purely physical world is therefore irrelevant.

I could argue that I understand that some people believe in all kind of things, which I already did with my suggestion of people believing that there is a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, which you confirmed to be a correct example with regard your question.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pm And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

The scope of our 'interaction' is the simple question how you can possibly justify a belief in free will while in the same time claiming that you are a materialist that believes that mind originates from the physical and that physical reality is ultimate and 'real'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

psyreporter wrote: ↑November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

...

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My personal opinion whether people could 'believe' in free will while in the same time believing that physical reality is all there is (that reality is 'real'), is irrelevant. It wouldn't help to discover an answer to the original question: how you are able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist.

Nope.

You are dodging a simple question: how you are able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist?

The cited quote by free will sceptics indicates that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

psyreporter wrote: ↑December 9th, 2021, 10:57 am You are dodging a simple question

lol - what a jackass.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 4th, 2021, 3:33 pm This may be an aspect of personal identity, in terms of subjective experience of consciousness. However; it is also about the nature of the subjective experience of self in relation to wider aspects of human experiences and the self. What is the self, and how may the basic constructs of ego be understood? Descartes spoke of the idea, ' I think, therefore I am.' What does this mean and how important may it be in the scheme of human identity and consciousness? How important is the 'I' of consciousness which and what does it signify, exactly?

My response is rather very simple: The fact that you use the word "I" signals that you, subconsciously, already know the answer.

To add up to my previous reply, I believe questions with this sort of profoundness can only be answered on an equally profound plane of thought—that is, beyond thought—as in, just by existing as yourself.

Or another equally interesting point of view would be that since we all exist as sentient beings, it means that we automatically know who we are.

@Gray Area

It is interesting how we come to know who we are as sentient beings. Memories and retrospective knowledge on the basis of action may be important too. That is because it may be that identity is not static and even though people have a self concept, it is fluid with a sense of feeling tone, related to self esteem. It may be possible to use the term I with a sense of pride, or with shame and loathing. The I may be battling with these feelings like internal war.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 12:13 pm

🦋 free will vs determinism wrote:

1. determinism: consciousness being an illusion (i.e. meaningless) and mind originating from the physical.
2. free will: meaning beyond the physical, with 'beyond' indicating that it must precede physical reality.

(1) The p-zombie thought experiment doesn't at all imply those two options.

The claim with regard the philosophical zombie theory was the following:

The philosophical zombie theory indicates that it is impossible to know (empirically) whether a (conscious) 'I' exists in another person.

Inferred is that one is unable to communicate 'meaningful experience' on the basis of which significance of a conscious 'I' is to be established.

In a simplified perspective, which is justified given the situation, the question whether conscious 'I' is to be considered concerns the simple question whether there is 'meaning' that cannot be captured empirically, which essence is addressed in the free will vs determinism debate.


(2) Determinism doesn't amount to consciousness being an illusion.

It was already established in the other topic Is consciousness an illusion? that the term illusion is used to denote the absence of 'meaningfulness', significance or purpose when it concerns conscious 'I', not that consciousness as it can be described to exist empirically, is non existent.

With determinism, life, intelligence and conscious 'I' is a product of the Universe (the laws of Physics).

"Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest." ~ The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?


(3) Consciousness being an illusion doesn't amount to consciousness being "meaningless."

It was established that the term illusion itself involves the presence or absence of 'meaningfulness' when it concerns significance of conscious 'I'.


(4) Free will doesn't amount to meaning "beyond the physical."

Physical = anything of which it can be said to exist by empirical principles, which implies that in a purely physical world, one cannot escape determinism.

When it concerns significance of the concept free will, one is to establish whether meaning is applicable as precursor to the physical world. What precedes a perspective on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within the perspective, therefore, as seen from a human perspective, free will would concern meaning "beyond the physical" (while on fundamental nature level it would precede it but that would be difficult to grasp empirically)


(5) "Beyond the physical" wouldn't imply anything about temporal or logical priority.

From inside a perspective (subjective experience of life), meaning would appear to lay 'beyond' physical reality (the future or the arrow of time). On a fundamental nature level, that same meaning would precede physical reality.

The logic is very simple: empirical reality is by definition at most a retro perspective. Thus, when one considers anything empirically, one looks 'backwards in time' and looks in the direction of an origin. That origin itself therefore, must have preceded any possible empirical perspective, explaining that on a fundamental nature level, 'meaning' would precede physical reality while from within a perspective, it lays beyond it.