Free will, freedom from what?

[henry quirk]

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.

Sure, but software/hardware was an analogy about how two different things can interact. It wasn't an argument about free will.

How could one get an uncaused effect?

In my view: you, a free will, are the cause. So: there isn't an uncaused effect.

[henry quirk]

Try again. Start by actually...

-reading what's in the linked material.

-reading all the permutations of Janoah's assertion.

[Atla]

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?

I don't know.

For a decade now, I tried to test the idea that QM may be 5-dimensional (or more), and while it may be deterministic in 5 dimensions, for all practical purposes from the perspective of our 4-dimensional reality tunnel, it could look like we have some limited free will. But I can neither prove nor disprove this.

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.

Or it could mean just more randomness.

I haven't read Penrose, I assume he means human consciousness. Not computable under which QM interpretations?

[Atla]

Try again. Start by actually...

-reading what's in the linked material.

-reading all the permutations of Janoah's assertion.

Your linked materials are metaphors for beginners and children. Why do you think we need to use hard drives lol.

[phyllo]

Wetness is a material property of material.

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

So you're saying that an arrangement of physical matter, even a very complex arrangement, could not display these behaviors.

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

Who is saying that thoughts, etc. are material??

I'm saying that physical matter can have thoughts, etc.

The brain is a physical object. It's doing the thinking in a person or animal.

Surely, your soul isn't doing the thinking? Why would it?

[phyllo]

How could one get an uncaused effect?

In my view: you, a free will, are the cause. So: there isn't an uncaused effect.

And you think that a free will breaks with the previous causes which brought about a particular state. Therefore, it is not caused by the current situation or state.

[henry quirk]

Your linked materials are metaphors for beginners and children.

Simple, plain, non-metaphorical, and clearly laying out why hardware and software are not the same.

Now, I've wasted enough time on justifying a analogy.

-----

You say...

For a decade now, I tried to test the idea that QM may be 5-dimensional (or more), and while it may be deterministic in 5 dimensions, for all practical purposes from the perspective of our 4-dimensional reality tunnel,

How did you test? Please, be as metaphorical as you like.

[Atla]

Your linked materials are metaphors for beginners and children.

Simple, plain, non-metaphorical, and clearly laying out why hardware and software are not the same.

Now, I've wasted enough time on justifying a analogy.

Actually I'm quite allergic to people who don't understand that software (information) is just an abstraction we make. It shows how incompetent that person is in philosophy. It's even worse when IT people say it.

[henry quirk]

So you're saying that an arrangement of physical matter, even a very complex arrangement, could not display these behaviors.

I do not believe any amount of matter, in any configuration, can imagine or intend or fear. We do so we must be more than just matter.

I'm saying that physical matter can have thoughts, etc.

I disagree.

The brain is a physical object. It's doing the thinking in a person or animal.

Not on it's own, no.

Surely, your soul isn't doing the thinking? Why would it?

Man is a composite thing -- spirit & substance -- his mind (spirit) intermixed with his flesh (substance); he is both equally. You might say these are his higher and lower natures. His substance grants efficacy in the world and anchors and constrains his spirit, which grants identity, intention, etc.

[henry quirk]

And you think that a free will breaks with the previous causes which brought about a particular state. Therefore, it is not caused by the current situation or state.

I think a free will is not necessarily rooted in, or determined by, prior events/causes.

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:35 pm
So you're saying that an arrangement of physical matter, even a very complex arrangement, could not display these behaviors.

I do not believe any amount of matter, in any configuration, can imagine or intend or fear. We do so we must be more than just matter.

Since animals display both intent and fear, then they must be more than matter ... yet you refer to animals as meat machines.

[henry quirk]

Actually I'm quite allergic

Antihistamines: try 'em.

[henry quirk]

Since animals display both intent and fear, then they must be more than matter ... yet you refer to animals as meat machines.

I think most, mebbe all, of what we see when it comes to animal displays of fear, intent, etc. is our anthropomorphizing them. We see what isn't there.

But, I certainly hold to the possibility there are non-human persons.

[Immanuel Can]

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

That's the key issue: there's no such thing as "a beginning that never began." You can see the contradiction even in the wording. If something that is contingent -- that is not itself eternal, that is -- "never began," then it wouldn't exist now. All things that are perishable have a beginning.

And we can see it. Entropy is another "clock," just as the universal expansion rate is a kind of "clock," that we can rewind back to the starting point. The world is like a clock "running down": energy is constantly being dissipated from a state of higher order to a state of lower order, on a universal scale. Fires run out of fuel. Mountains wear down. Automobiles deteriorate. Stars themselves burn out. Paper thrown into the air lands randomly. In these phenomena, and in billions of other ways, we see entropy. In fact, it's probably our best-established natural law, the second law of thermodynamics.

So we know that the Earth had a beginning, though we were not at it. We can even deduce some details about it from our present state. But we know for sure that there was a beginning, and no reasonable or scientific person can deny there was.

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, you're mistaking what people knew at a given time, from what was true at that same time. The Earth was round before people had telescopes.

Now, if you think there's any evidence that in ancient times, say, iron was sentient, or hydrogen was philosophical and self-aware, I'll happily see your evidence. Until you have some, skepticism remains extremely high -- and should.

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

I neither knew you had nor did I mention it. However, if you're imagining base elements have consciousness...well, that would explain the confusion. LSD and such have permanent, residual brain effects, sometimes even including unanticipated manifestations later in life. So thank you for that piece of information, I guess.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I'm not speaking of what's "better" either. You'll look in vain for that word above. I'm talking about what's rational, what's entailed by things like claims of randomness.

For which we still need your definition, please. Or, if you're irritated by being philosophically questioned at all, then I can forgo the conversation in deference to your preference.