Neuroscience and free will

So those promoting Physicalism want people to pretend there is human responsibility and human achievement, while in reality everyone should also accept it's just a game of pretend?

I think they would tell you that people can accept that their lives have meaning and responsibility simply by deciding  they do and then figuring out what they want. If people do that, are you going to lecture them that they are fooling themselves and please accept my alternative ideas on faith?

It seems one can oppose Physicalism by supporting even the idea free will is something special as one brute fact like other brute facts Physicalists are happy to take on.

I guess you can say you oppose it, but that seems like saying you oppose blue sky or oysters. Without evidence of some sort of libertarian free will, the opposition seems vapid.

You might start a nonprofit to promote the idea that we live in an indeterministic world, but I daresay that would go the way of a religion. Perhaps you could steer it in a different direction.

Basically support parapsychology, theistic and immaterialist philoosphy, intelligent design, and all the other avenues seeking to show mental causation.

I'd skip the intelligent design, unless you have a new take on it. It's trying to be mathematical and scientific but failing miserably.

~~ Paul

Something about the Window has to be receptive to the Brick + Momentum.

How is this different from a brute fact about brittleness?

Well the question was "How could free will be possible?" without taking it as a brute fact completely in separation from the rest of causality.

The question was, what would make a decision "free"? We've already stipulated, for the sake of the discussion, that free will could be possible. Given that we have our possibility selector (consciousness), and that it is not composite, what about the selection is "free", rather than something else, like "indeterminate"?

Sorry, can you expand on this. You seem to be saying that our attempts don't speak to what actually goes on in nature, and to some extent I would agree - we can claim there are laws but they are just descriptions/assumptions of patterns.

But I think Laird and Paul already came to that conclusion?

Our attempts speak to what actually goes on in nature, in that we are able to describe collections of necessary events by using our laws to select which events to collect. Those necessary events didn't get there because of human descriptions of laws, though. They got there because this is how it has all played out as symmetry has broken.

Linda

How is this different from a brute fact about brittleness?

Brittleness is an observation of the receptivity.

I believe this was something Laird already discussed re: Necessity in Possible Worlds?

The question was, what would make a decision "free"? We've already stipulated, for the sake of the discussion, that free will could be possible. Given that we have our possibility selector (consciousness), and that it is not composite, what about the selection is "free", rather than something else, like "indeterminate"?

I think we already discussed this in the thread? Silence had this whole conversation with Paul right?

I would say indeterminate for no reason violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). But yeah, if someone wants to say it's random that would involve a discussion about randomness, Hyperchaos, Unique Events...but I feel the thread covered that as well?

Not sure what more I can say, as an external mathematical description of a free willed agent will always look stochastic, which is neither random nor deterministic.

Henry Stapp has some stuff related to PSR and quantum mechanics and how this relates to free will...maybe some will find what they are looking for there:

Apparent Retrocausation As A Consequence of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics Refined To Accommodate The Principle Of Sufficient Reason

I agree that if it's all random then human life is as worthless as it is under Physicalism/Materialism but once you let in a bit of randomness the entire picture gets quite wobbly...like feces and barrels of wine...

Our attempts speak to what actually goes on in nature, in that we are able to describe collections of necessary events by using our laws to select which events to collect. Those necessary events didn't get there because of human descriptions of laws, though. They got there because this is how it has all played out as symmetry has broken.

Sorry I still don't get what this has to do with the Talbott quote?

I believe Laird discussed "necessary" when he talked about Scwartz writing on nomological / logic / metaphysical necessity?

Eric Weiss has a treatment of Whitehead type process philosophy getting into details of causation and how it can relate to Psi + Afterlife, and he made the pre-revised version legally free:

The Long Trajectory

This seems like a potentially useful chart:

addendum to the last post, but wanted to make sure it's seen. i decided to make a new thread for the Brick & Window:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-i...2#pid26742

Brittleness is an observation of the receptivity.

Okay? Still don't know what you're getting at.

I think we already discussed this in the thread? Silence had this whole conversation with Paul right?

I don't know. I don't read every post, because philosophy is mostly dumb and metaphysics is all dumb. (Nobody needs to be upset by this. I'm well aware that stuff I'm passionate about is dumb to others. I'm just conveying my (lack of) interest.) 

I would say indeterminate for no reason violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).

Huh? We already know that it's wrong, though, because Quantum Mechanics and Entanglement.

But yeah, if someone wants to say it's random that would involve a discussion about randomness, Hyperchaos, Unique Events...but I feel the thread covered that as well?

Not covered in any meaningful way, as far as I could see. All I saw were a lot of claims to ignorance. "Indeterminate/random" refers to a very specific phenomenon, which is fulfilled by your description. If you want to claim that "free" decisions are the same as "random/indeterminate" decisions, and then soften the blow by muddying up what it means, be my guest. I'm just trying to understand whether or not you have a coherent point, for Paul's sake.  

Linda

Okay? Still don't know what you're getting at.

Brittleness is something that follows from underlying necessary considerations.

I don't know. I don't read every post, because philosophy is mostly dumb and metaphysics is all dumb. (Nobody needs to be upset by this. I'm well aware that stuff I'm passionate about is dumb to others. I'm just conveying my (lack of) interest.) 

Lol, ok...I mean if the question is just mental causation, that would be Psi, QM & consciousness, quantum biology, etc.

It seems to me the question [that] Paul was asking was a metaphysical question, given it includes whether everything is deterministic/random.

Huh? We already know that it's wrong, though, because Quantum Mechanics and Entanglement.

Well this is a metaphysical question people debate...And I feel like was a big part of this thread? Even Paul [linked to a physicist who said we should not] abandon the PSR, though exactly what that means would differ. (See mention of Stapp.)

Not covered in any meaningful way, as far as I could see. All I saw were a lot of claims to ignorance. "Indeterminate/random" refers to a very specific phenomenon, which is fulfilled by your description. If you want to claim that "free" decisions are the same as "random/indeterminate" decisions, and then soften the blow by muddying up what it means, be my guest. I'm just trying to understand whether or not you have a coherent point, for Paul's sake.  

So the thing you think is dumb and don't care about is the very thing you are qualified to judge in the thread you admittedly didn't read all of? LOL.


The difference between free decisions and random decisions was something the thread spent quite a few pages on.

It seems to me the question [that] Paul was asking was a metaphysical question, given it includes whether everything is deterministic/random.

I don't think Paul was asking whether everything is deterministic/random. He was asking for a coherent description of "free" that didn't sound like deterministic or random, given that neither option is regarded as palatable (you've mentioned multiple times now that if your will is determined or random, then you're life would be worthless, you'd have no reason to act morally, etc.).

Are you able to answer my question?

"Given that we have our possibility selector (consciousness), and that it is not composite, what about the selection is "free", rather than something else, like "indeterminate"?"

The difference between free decisions and random decisions was something the thread spent quite a few pages on.

I realize many pages were spent on this. But neither Paul nor I can find something in there which answers his question. How did the possibility selector select "fish"?

Linda

I don't think Paul was asking whether everything is deterministic/random. He was asking for a coherent description of "free" that didn't sound like deterministic or random, given that neither option is regarded as palatable (you've mentioned multiple times now that if your will is determined or random, then you're life would be worthless, you'd have no reason to act morally, etc.).

If there is no worry about [everything] being random or deterministic not sure what exactly would be the problem? Then free will just is a property of conscious agents, maybe gifted by God or just something they possess b/c of some other reason. How it works can be known through introspection.

And actually I said all human life is worthless since there is no real sense of human achievement or human morality. So far the only answers I've gotten seem to be saying we can just pretend we have those things. Not very satisfying - when do you tell a child they have no control over their actions, but are still responsible for them?

"Given that we have our possibility selector (consciousness), and that it is not composite, what about the selection is "free", rather than something else, like "indeterminate"?"

I just said I don't think the kind of randomness you are talking about is a real thing, because it violates the PSR? Again, the issue of randomness was discussed in the thread, but as noted below there is more that could potentially be said on the subject without even getting into free will.

I realize many pages were spent on this. But neither Paul nor I can find something in there which answers his question. How did the possibility selector select "fish"?

I'm a bit lost on why you - someone who lacks interest in philosophy/metaphysics - are speaking for Paul, who has actually been reading the thread & AFAIK based on our past conversations has some interest in philosophy/metaphysics? This back & forth between us seems like an odd use of everyone's time? 

As I said earlier in the thread, what I wrote is really just a sketch of ideas from Process Philosophy. I fully accept that as a sketch it leaves a lot of things to be filled in (greater defense of Efficient & Final Cause, the continued validity of the PSR, more on the invalidity of true randomness, etc) - why I said in the very beginning of the thread it's better to talk about causation first without getting into human free will. 70 pages in and it seems I was right?

I even made a new thread for that as I fear we'll all just be going in circles otherwise.

So I can give the same answer I gave Paul about why the fish was selected - Final Cause - but I suspect without some more discussion of causation it won't be satisfying to either of you in the way Laird and I feel the sketch successfully communicated the basic idea of process philosophy's version of free will.

Alternatively there are the books I recommended in the thread that get into the subject of free will which may be able to make up for any failures in my own communicative abilities - none of them save the Eric Weiss book I (legally) linked to earlier today are process philosophy books if people want something different:

Of Time & Lamentation by Raymond Tallis

A Place for Consciousness by Gregg Rosenberg

Aquinas for Beginners by Edward Feser