Chironian, maybe she wasn't ready for it. If you read the whole text, you will find several examples where exposing truth about the lies a person, even an intelligent person, has lived for 30 or more years, can result in a fierce retaliation. So don't, or be prepared for the consequences.

Everyone may find their own intelligent way of promoting the ideas contained there but it takes some time. Sometimes I've laid the link to the whole book along with a comment or two, sometimes I've taken out carefully chosen snippets.

hey's guys I don't mean to devalue self-questioning and the like but let's debate the theory of free will.

Abolitionist:

hey's guys I don't mean to devalue self-questioning and the like but let's debate the theory of free will.

One of the reasons I stayed out of this thread is because I see the question as unimportant. Better questions to ask are why do we perceive the passage of time at all and why does time have a preferred degree of freedom?

In current physics, space-time can be understood as an enormous and static eleven-dimensional shape. An observer's perception of the present is essentially a slice taken from their local portion of the space-time block. Their perception of the passage of time is the successive slices taken from their local area.

Viewed by an observer from outside, in a higher dimension space, the space-time block is static and unchanging. The future and past exist but lie outside the perceptual slices of observers within the block. On the microscopic level, the space-time shape (Henceforth referred to as a manifold.) is fuzzy and blurry due to the unavoidable randomness and acausality of quantum mechanics but on the classical scale, thanks to the correspondance principle, the block appears as sharp and deterministic as ever. This is how physics currently understands space and time.

So the questions then arise: What causes observers within the block to perceive successive, local slices from the block? Why do they perceive successive frames from their local movie, to use a metaphor? And why do all observer's movies only go in one direction, the same direction universally?

To me, these are better questions to ask. Free-will is an illusion* that is easily explained by current physics. The better, larger question is, why do we perceive change at all?

 

 

* Sorry, chaos and quantum theory, assuming you have the correct understanding of them, are no help for doctrine of free will.

On the microscopic level things are indeterminate but that randomness is hardly a support for free will. To use it would reduce the weighty decisions that we make to coin tossing, not an act of volition. Besides, the correspondance principle says that quantum theory collapses to classical physics on the macroscopic level anyway. Chaos theory is of no help either because classical nonlinear systems are still just as deterministic as simple ones. You can predict their future exactly if you view them in isolation and specify their initial conditions with an infinite degree of precision.

that was a sweet post, had to re-read a few times.

 I'm excited about the prospects of the CERN particle accelerator;

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/AboutCERN-en.html

(especially the LHC - http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/)

Also, I think it's good to discuss the implications of 'no free-will' from a societal design perspective.

 

chimaster:

Chironian, maybe she wasn't ready for it. If you read the whole text, you will find several examples where exposing truth about the lies a person, even an intelligent person, has lived for 30 or more years, can result in a fierce retaliation. So don't, or be prepared for the consequences.

Everyone may find their own intelligent way of promoting the ideas contained there but it takes some time. Sometimes I've laid the link to the whole book along with a comment or two, sometimes I've taken out carefully chosen snippets.

-

Hello, chimaster;

Yeah, I know about the retaliation thing. Someone pm'd me at another forum- a friend- however, and explained that if I wasn't making enemies, than I wasn't doing my job.

There has to exist a way to give people's cages a gentler stirring, instead of the rattlings that I deliver. But which is most effective? Below a certain point of feistiness there will be no personal evolution at all. Humor?

Howdo, Abolitionist,

Have you gotten more comfortable about the intelligence conveyed on that link I mentioned before from chimaster? Do you see how free will is fully operational only for people who can live outside of their own box? 

Mr Farlops;

You're still skipping over the software operations that apply here. How much does software actually dictate the physical state of the hardware on a computer? Human intelligence at the bare minimum has the attributes of a self adaptive learning system- which make it causally open to inner modification and improvements. 

Chironian:

You're still skipping over the software operations that apply here. How much does software actually dictate the physical state of the hardware on a computer? Human intelligence at the bare minimum has the attributes of a self adaptive learning system- which make it causally open to inner modification and improvements.

Software can have a small effect on the hardware of a computer. For example software could damage a CRT by attempting to drive it at refresh rates and brightnesses that the monitor is not built for. Software could cause a hard disk drive to fail sooner by moving the read and write stylus an inefficient way. Software could cause a GPU to run inefficiently and fail from overheating sooner. I suppose software could also turn off cooling fans inside a computer case. I suppose if hardware was poorly made and software was deliberately written to take advantage of this shoddiness, you could drive some catastrophic hardware failures with software.

But there are significant limitations. The best data compression allowable by mathematics can't give you infinite disk space. All the software improvements in the world can't start a computer without a power supply. In fact software can't start a computer at all; a human being still has to plug it into a wall and press the power switch.

But I don't really see what this has to do with the issue of free will. Yes, humans are learning and adaptive systems. All living things are--cells adapt and learn, species adapt and learn. I still don't see what that has to do with free will.

Abolitionist:

Also, I think it's good to discuss the implications of 'no free-will' from a society design perspective.

I think physics only has a very, very, very indirect impact on society and morality. Nuclear weapons, gun powder, electric chairs, global warming, stuff like that, that's about it.

Just because physics has banished the spook of free will doesn't necessarily mean anything. Our laws, politics and issues of personal responsibility shouldn't be changed because of it. We are organisms that function as if we have volition because of evolution. The illusion is emergent but it's an illusion that seems unavoidable.

Societies that pretended that there was no such thing as collective or personal responsibility (Illusion though it may ultimately be.) would rapidly disintegrate. Society is based on a lot of things that are ultimately illusions but those illusions make society work.

I say society shouldn't have to worry about the philosophical ramifictions of physics--they don't really matter.

The technological ramifications of physics (nukes, nanotechnology, global warming.), on the other hand, matter a great deal. 

Chironian:

Howdo, Abolitionist,

Have you gotten more comfortable about the intelligence conveyed on that link I mentioned before from chimaster? Do you see how free will is fully operational only for people who can live outside of their own box?

Given that your aim here is to 'rattle cages' rather than debate...

Mr. Farlops:

Just because physics has banished the spook of free will doesn't necessarily mean anything. Our laws, politics and issues of personal responsibility shouldn't be changed because of it. We are organisms that function as if we have volition because of evolution. The illusion is emergent but it's an illusion that seems unavoidable.

Societies that pretended that there was no such thing as collective or personal responsibility (Illusion though it may ultimately be.) would rapidly disintegrate. Society is based on a lot of things that are ultimately illusions but those illusions make society work.

Disintegration of our illusions will be necessary to move forward. The illusion of personal responsibility and accountability can be replaced over time by rational/logical processes.

 I think that the realization that there is no free-will and consequently no evil has profound implications on our societal design. No longer is retributive punishment acceptable or justified.

Instead we can focus on changing the design of our society and gene pool which are responsible for creating our consciousness and consequently the temporary and illusionary subjective experience of free-will.

(in my subjective experience - the illusion of free-will comes and goes - it isn't 'self-evident' just another thought process.)

 

Abolitionist:

Disintegration of our illusions will be necessary to move forward. The illusion of personal responsibility and accountability can be replaced over time by rational/logical processes.

Sigh. Haven't we already been through this in other threads? So, since you keep steering things in this direction, what would you replace responsibility with? Please don't be vague. If you're vague, I won't bother to reply.

Even though I believe free will is nonsense, I still believe in responsibility. Perhaps that's logically contradictory but it's very pragmatic.

Abolitionist:

I think that the realization that there is no free-will and consequently no evil has profound implications on our societal design. No longer is retributive punishment acceptable or justified.

Sure, evil is merely and purely a human concept that has nothing to do with the universe at large but, it's still a valuable concept to build a society with.

So let's hear it, what you would replace justice and responsibility with? Again if you're vague, I won't bother to reply. 

Abolitionist:

Instead we can focus on changing the design of our society and gene pool which are responsible for creating our consciousness and consequently the temporary and illusionary subjective experience of free-will.

The illusion of free will seems to be an unavoidable aspect of human and perhaps all mammalian consciousness. I suppose it might be possible to have consciousness without this illusion of free-will but, since I'm only human, I have no idea what it would be like.

If such a form of consciousness exists, that form of consciousness is entirely outside our ken so, it will be very hard to design organisms to have that form of consciousness. How will we know if we've succeeded? How would even communicate with such creatures? 

Mr. Farlops:

Haven't we already been through this in other threads? ...what would you replace responsibility with?

Even though I believe free will is nonsense, I still believe in responsibility. Perhaps that's logically contradictory but it's very pragmatic.

I don't remember that... anyhow, I agree that pain and responsibility are necessary right now in the present (due to Darwinian design.) I'm suggesting that we move forward in the direction of removing suffering. What we replace responsibility with will depend on the specifics of the circumstances.

You can't create a being (society is responsible for creating the genes and environment) and then disavow yourself of responsibility for their actions - this is where responsibility lies. We create badly designed humans and train them to become what they are.

 This means that individuals can still be corrected justifiably, however to force them to believe that they have free will to be evil and therefore less deserving of happiness - is a falsehood. To go further and torture inmates through abuse (they all do) is insanity akin to the conditions in mental asylums of not many years ago.

In the here and now we'll still need pain as a backup mechanism - a last resort. The ideal is to provide pleasure to motivate and train our created beings to behave in ways that lead to the happiness of all. The exact mechanism must depend on the specifics of the circumstances.

Mr. Farlops:

The illusion of free will seems to be an unavoidable aspect of human and perhaps all mammalian consciousness. I suppose it might be possible to have consciousness without this illusion of free-will but, since I'm only human, I have no idea what it would be like.

If such a form of consciousness exists, that form of consciousness is entirely outside our ken so, it will be very hard to design organisms to have that form of consciousness. How will we know if we've succeeded? How would even communicate with such creatures?

Let's make a distinction between free-will and the experience of self (which we know to feel dependant on many factors). I myself, have never experienced the sensation that I had the freedom to will anything that wasn't dependent on many factors.

What does my will-power depend on? There are numerous subjectively experienced factors at any given time. Are my subjectively experienced factors accurate? I highly doubt it - considering the inherent nature of the VR dome [skull]

what would you replace justice and responsibility with?

Justice is best served through compassionate and pleasurable correction for both victim and criminal.

Victims (and onlookers) don't need to have criminals hurt or killed - just to know that the crime will be deterred/prevented and the criminals rehabilitated - anything more is morally wrong IMO. Hopefully society will provide care to victims as well. 

Criminals just need to be reprogrammed via both learning and biological means in some cases - and the aim should be to treat them with compassion and rehabilitate them towards greater happiness.

Responsibility must be the burden of 'society'. This means that instead of retribution or vilification of individuals - we acknowledge that correction must be made to our societal design and make the necessary changes.

Eventually all societies must unify as one entity on some level.

Abolitionist:

Chironian:

Howdo, Abolitionist,

Have you gotten more comfortable about the intelligence conveyed on that link I mentioned before from chimaster? Do you see how free will is fully operational only for people who can live outside of their own box?

Given that your aim here is to 'rattle cages' rather than debate...

No one who's worried about being "rattled" has any business thinking about "social design". You might never understand the nature of the Science Dogma cage you've made for yourself otherwise, which is what keeps you from understanding free-will as pre-axiomatic to life, intelligence, growth, well being, achievement and the powers of human creativity, which I endeavor to educe and rekindle in people... 

I just found a comment on another site that called the ramonski pages I also placed here the best link on the net, in response to my posting similar there. Which is great news.
 

So mayhap it's worth a looksy, if your not over-rattled at this juncture? It has a fantastic description of free-will in action on the first few pages, and it envisions a great heuristic for helping self and others...

Or maybe Voyage from Yesteryear would be a better way to stir up your "inner cage rattler"

But the carping of cultural alliterates really is counterproductive, unless it makes a lesson about "what human life is not", which unfortunately the world has aplenty.

 

 

Chironian, you've still yet to provide evidence for free-will.

 Linking to Ramonsky's page does not provide any evidence.

This is the purpose of this thread - to debate the existance of free-will.

Abolitionist:

You can't create a being (society is responsible for creating the genes and environment) and then disavow yourself of responsibility for their actions - this is where responsibility lies. We create badly designed humans and train them to become what they are.

Good point. However this is not a perfect world and sometimes we have a very limited degree of control over all the factors that make a thing what it is. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, errors still arise. In a complex and changing world, surprises are certain.

Abolitionist:

In the here and now we'll still need pain as a backup mechanism - a last resort. The ideal is to provide pleasure to motivate and train our created beings to behave in ways that lead to the happiness of all. The exact mechanism must depend on the specifics of the circumstances.

So, if I interpret this right, you don't know the details yet. You have a goal but the implementation is still fuzzy.

So until your project has clarified this, we have to carry on the way we've been doing--laws assume that sane adults are responsible for their actions and should be punished if they break the rules.

I've not bothered to quote the rest of your post becuase it digresses from what I'm actually interested in: How would your project make beings who'd never commit crimes? From what I've read, you're still not certain on that point and have had to admit that our current system, which assumes adults are responsible, flawed though it may be, is best we have so far.