Free will, freedom from what?

[Self-Lightening]

Well, the Physicalist or Materialist explanation of the universe is that it appeared spontaneously. And matter was generated spontaneously, from energy. And we know that the universe did have a beginning point, even though we can't say precisely when. (We know this from things like universal expansion, entropy, and the red shift effect.) So we know that at some point, the universe didn't exist, and now it does.

That doesn't necessarily follow. We know the universe has always been expanding, but that doesn't mean it ever began to expand.

You'll need to rethink that. If the universe is expanding, even if we didn't know the rate (which we do: it's 73.3 ±2.5 kilometers per second) we would know from that fact that it had a beginning. All we would have to do is mentally "rewind" the expansion, and we'd see that the universe had to have begun from a singular point of ultimate density (this is called "the Big Bang"). And even if we couldn't tell how long ago that was, we certainly could tell THAT it was.

"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, given the lack of available data. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Inflation_and_baryogenesis

I say the Big Bang is the beginning that never began, just as the Big Chill is the ending that will never end.

And in the Materialist or Physicalist telling of the story, all that existed before the Big Bang was a bunch of gasses and energy...things like quark-gluon plasma and such. None of these chemicals or basic elements had "mind," anymore than a handful of iron or a puff of oxygen would today.

All those things may very well have mind.

I find that suggestion excessively implausible. A base element has never given even the slightest indication of consciousness, in the entire known history of the world. On what basis, then, would you attribute sentience to rocks or minerals? Only by pure imagination, but not on the basis of any facts, obviously.

Are you sure, though, that, throughout the entire known history of the world, people had microscopes?

Again, check out my posts in that other thread. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Take it or leave it.

Haven't used hallucinogens for about six years now, by the way.

[Age]

No. I'm asking how it could ever come about in the first place.

I admit, you did say "how", not "why". But then, I don't owe anyone an explanation of that, since I reject your very premise: that at some point it didn't exist and at some later point it did exist.

Well, the Physicalist or Materialist explanation of the universe is that it appeared spontaneously. And matter was generated spontaneously, from energy. And we know that the universe did have a beginning point, even though we can't say precisely when. (We know this from things like universal expansion, entropy, and the red shift effect.) So we know that at some point, the universe didn't exist, and now it does.

you human beings do not know the the Universe began at all.

Some of you just presume and/or believe that the Universe began, although there is absolutely no proof for this at all.

So, this is another absolutely False claim.made by here by "immanuel can".

And in the Materialist or Physicalist telling of the story, all that existed before the Big Bang was a bunch of gasses and energy...things like quark-gluon plasma and such. None of these chemicals or basic elements had "mind," anymore than a handful of iron or a puff of oxygen would today.

So how did this "mind" thing begin? If Materialism or Physicalism presents itself as the superior way to explain the universe, it owes us that explanation.

What's your evidence for rabbit self-awareness?

Again with the straw men...

Well, you hedged your bets by saying that you simply wouldn't preclude it as a possibility, but that's awfully weak, and shifts the burden of proof to the wrong person. Surely it's the one who thinks rabbits can generate meaning who owes us to justify such a counter-evidentiary proposition. In the absence of such evidence, we have no reason at all to go about supposing rabbits can do anything of the kind. Rabbits have, in their aeons of existence, not produced a single artifact, or composed a single argument, or issued a single reflection for public consideration on the meaning of anything. So you are supposing in them a faculty they have never manifested. On the converse side, I'm not supposing anything of them at all that we cannot readily see.

If you haven't precluded the possibility of rabbit philosophy, you surely should until at least one stitch of supportive evidence comes in.

Well, it sounds like a form of mysticism, Pantheism, or at least Idealism of some sort. Because if "all matter" has "mind," then rocks have mind.

Not necessarily; not as rocks. What I'm saying is that all parts of the rock, at some level, have mind.

That seems even less likely. A rock can, at least, be a bit complex by way of having several different minerals in it: but its more basic minerals, it's "parts," like copper, or iron, or gold...these things surely cannot have mind, can they?

If you think they can, I'll consider your evidence.

[attofishpi]

That doesn't necessarily follow. We know the universe has always been expanding, but that doesn't mean it ever began to expand.

You'll need to rethink that. If the universe is expanding, even if we didn't know the rate (which we do: it's 73.3 ±2.5 kilometers per second) we would know from that fact that it had a beginning. All we would have to do is mentally "rewind" the expansion, and we'd see that the universe had to have begun from a singular point of ultimate density (this is called "the Big Bang"). And even if we couldn't tell how long ago that was, we certainly could tell THAT it was.

"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, given the lack of available data. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Inflation_and_baryogenesis

I say the Big Bang is the beginning that never began, just as the Big Chill is the ending that will never end.

All those things may very well have mind.

I find that suggestion excessively implausible. A base element has never given even the slightest indication of consciousness, in the entire known history of the world. On what basis, then, would you attribute sentience to rocks or minerals? Only by pure imagination, but not on the basis of any facts, obviously.

Are you sure, though, that, throughout the entire known history of the world, people had microscopes?

Again, check out my posts in that other thread. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Take it or leave it.

Haven't used hallucinogens for about six years now, by the way.

..I think someone needs to question Immanuel about how a universe ceases to exist because of "entropy"..it's all he bangs on about (no pun intended)

[attofishpi]

If you think you can just google until tomorrow what this QM thing is, and then lecture me about it, you might be in for a surprise.

I actually just did a bit of research on what I have been posting for many years on this forum – there was actually a conversation between us on QM (we got along better back then, when you didn’t write me off because I claim to know God exists and have mentioned some “”miracles”” since)

The more recent QM-indeterminacy theory I have regarding Free-Will stems from the Boony’s Room thought experiment I posted on an earlier page…

BOONY'S ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?


Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

So.

Do the two David Boons remain "mirrored" or does the ONLY difference between each instance of them - the fact that they are individual minds - cause their actions to DIVERGE?

They will diverge because of randomness, not because of free will.

But I am stating that if our free will will does rely on something that is random at the quantum level, then our 'will' must reduce the parameters of the randomness until they whittle down to a point where the mind makes a decision.

In other words, it’s not the “randomness” that has the decision making process and the result of the human mind is not chaotic, randomness...(even if the quantum state is chaos itself)..the human mind makes its will from said 'randomness' - quantum indeterminacy operating at every point within the mind's decision making process.

[Flannel Jesus]

The point is that IC's concept of randomness is based on "lack of information".

True randomness isn't based on lack of information. And if it exists, then "predetermination" isn't possible.

I agree with all that. It's some kind of faux randomness he's talking about.

You shouldn't. There's nothing about being the pawn of random factors that is any better than being the pawn of factors we know. In both cases, we would just be pawns, still in what Weber called, "the iron cage" of predetermination. The only thing that would have changed is the name of our "jailor." But we would be no more free.

You don't seem to know what we're talking about, because all of what you just said isn't it. Neither phyllo nor I, in those quotes you quoted, are speaking a word about what's better about anything.

This is the second time in this thread you've quoted me and entirely misunderstood the thing you were quoting, presumably because you're reading whatever you want into the words I and others write. I get the impression you're not really taking the time to read and understand what's being said before you think up your reply.

[phyllo]

The point is that IC's concept of randomness is based on "lack of information".

Speaking of "lack of information," why don't you answer my question?

What's your "scientific" definition of "random"?

I prefer the link I provided rather than a definition because it highlights the difference between what is truly random and what we would call random due to lack of information.

[Atla]

I actually just did a bit of research on what I have been posting for many years on this forum – there was actually a conversation between us on QM (we got along better back then, when you didn’t write me off because I claim to know God exists and have mentioned some “”miracles”” since)

The more recent QM-indeterminacy theory I have regarding Free-Will stems from the Boony’s Room thought experiment I posted on an earlier page…

BOONY'S ROOM: A thought experiment to consider Determinism and Free Will/Compatibilism..

Two identical copies of cricketer David Boon were made unbeknownst to him, in an instant!

The two copies of "Boony", instantly appear facing each other from opposite corners of a white room that is 3 metres cubed, identical in all directions.

There are no causal effects differing in each of the Boony's slightly differing positions in spacetime. Nothing in this thought experiment regarding each version of David Boon once instantiated within the room is different in any way.


What happens next?


Do they both, at the same time, ask the exact same question of each other? Do they end up arguing because they both keep attempting to interject at precisely the same time with precisely the same dialogue?

After five minutes, the pair hear a voice asking them to draw a picture of their favourite fruit on the wall and are told there is a pencil in their left pocket.

Do they both turn and draw on the same symmetrically opposite part of the wall? Do they both draw identical images of the fruit?

So.

Do the two David Boons remain "mirrored" or does the ONLY difference between each instance of them - the fact that they are individual minds - cause their actions to DIVERGE?

They will diverge because of randomness, not because of free will.

But I am stating that if our free will will does rely on something that is random at the quantum level, then our 'will' must reduce the parameters of the randomness until they whittle down to a point where the mind makes a decision.

In other words, it’s not the “randomness” that has the decision making process and the result of the human mind is not chaotic, randomness...(even if the quantum state is chaos itself)..the human mind makes its will from said 'randomness' - quantum indeterminacy operating at every point within the mind's decision making process.

That's why I said that if there's quantum free will, it's not because of the indeterminacy itself.

[phyllo]

This has already been discussed.

But not countered.

"Understanding" and "grasping" are emergent properties of matter.

I believe this is called a *category mistake. It's the typical dismissiveness of those who cling to a promissory materialism.




*if so, ironic considering who came up with it and why

Counter arguments were made, so I don't know where you are getting "but not countered".

How is it a category mistake to point out emergent properties of matter?

Apparently fake Einstein has never heard of emergent properties. Real Einstein wouldn't be that stupid.

I don't mind someone presenting their arguments in the form of a dialog, but please don't try to get credibility for those arguments by using a respected person and making him, or her, say dumb stuff that the real person would never have said.

[Flannel Jesus]

I prefer the link I provided...

I'm curious to see the link. I searched near the posts you quoted but didn't see one.

[phyllo]

Here's a poor analogy: a damaged hard drive can make it impossible for software to run properly. Each affects the other without being the other. The hardware alone is useless. The software alone is impotent. Apart both are only potential. Together, actuality.

A person is not his soul. A person is the union of body and soul, co-equal.

When the computer is operating, the software is entirely represented by a particular arrangement of atoms and subatomic particles. So the "laws" of interaction of physical objects is being obeyed ... the cause and effect stuff.

I don't know how software or a soul could bypass that physical cause and effect. How could one get an uncaused effect?

[phyllo]

I prefer the link I provided...

I'm curious to see the link. I searched near the posts you quoted but didn't see one.

This is the link:

https://hackernoon.com/natural-selectio ... ernoon.com

I quoted the section under "Meet True Randomness"

[attofishpi]

They will diverge because of randomness, not because of free will.

But I am stating that if our free will will does rely on something that is random at the quantum level, then our 'will' must reduce the parameters of the randomness until they whittle down to a point where the mind makes a decision.

In other words, it’s not the “randomness” that has the decision making process and the result of the human mind is not chaotic, randomness...(even if the quantum state is chaos itself)..the human mind makes its will from said 'randomness' - quantum indeterminacy operating at every point within the mind's decision making process.

That's why I said that if there's quantum free will, it's not because of the indeterminacy itself.

I am not saying indeterminacy is the requirement either, just making an observation based on a hypothetical.

Are you of the opinion that free will does not exist?

If consciousness is not computable as Sir Roger P suggests, then there is NO determinism within it...which suggests something very fundamental at the QM level is happening...ergo, part of my rationale to David Boon (& David Boon)...diverging thoughts.

[henry quirk]

They are exactly being the other, a software is a part of the hardware.

No, hardware and software are not the same thing. Hardware refers to the physical components of a computer that you can touch, such as the monitor and keyboard, while software is a collection of instructions that tells the hardware what to do, including programs and applications.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/differenc ... -software/

https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/differe ... -software/

And the entire point of an airplane is to counteract the force of gravity with an opposing force.

Yes, so one can disobey the law of gravity (sumthin' Janoah sez can't be done).

[henry quirk]

Counter arguments were made

Throwing out emergence or emergent property is not a counter. Particularly when the property you say emerges from matter is not, itself, material.

How is it a category mistake to point out emergent properties of matter?

Wetness is a material property of material.

Hope is not. Love is not. Hate is not. Intention is not.

Category mistake.

But, if you can show me how thought, emotion, identity, belief, conviction, etc. are material, I'm listening.

[Atla]

They are exactly being the other, a software is a part of the hardware.

No, hardware and software are not the same thing. Hardware refers to the physical components of a computer that you can touch, such as the monitor and keyboard, while software is a collection of instructions that tells the hardware what to do, including programs and applications.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/differenc ... -software/

https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/differe ... -software/

Yes they are the same thing, the software is a part of the hardware.

What you quoted are just metaphors.

And the entire point of an airplane is to counteract the force of gravity with an opposing force.

Yes, so one can disobey the law of gravity (sumthin' Janoah sez can't be done).

You're not disobeying the law of gravity, you're counteracting it.