The Solution to the Problem of the Freedom of the Will

So far it seems the free will denial argument is "I can't prove every causal chain has to fit the deterministic/random dichotomy, and I can't explain how causation works, but I KNOW that free will cannot exist no matter what."

Then there seems to be an insistence that someone has to show why the deterministic/random dichotomy is false or an exception exists...but isn't that an odd requirement to make of someone? We don't ask people to disprove God, assuming Its existence, after all. Someone has to show why the dichotomy is a valid thing to assume about reality.

Feel like I'm missing something, because I just don't see why anyone should take any of the presented "Free Will is Impossible" arguments seriously?  Seems like a  faith-based claim to me. *shrugs*

I asked a very specific question - explain the how of any causal event.

The algorithm is the cause, that's why pure logic questions work. They are the basis of all other things. You can rebuild every event in the universe with nothing but pure math relationships. Logically it's all just math at it's core as a result.

The algorithm is the cause, that's why pure logic questions work. They are the basis of all other things. You can rebuild every event in the universe with nothing but pure math relationships. Logically it's all just math at it's core as a result.

But the algorithm is determined via observation, so how could the algorithm be the cause? 

Mathematics is a description of the universe. How does the math - even if it's in a Platonic Realm - become actual existence?

I light a match, and someone seeing this writes an equation. Even if the equation was extant in a Platonic sense eternally why would it cause the match to light?

p.s. I would say logic works because the logical truths are within the Universal Intellect, but also not sure why logic working can offer an explanation of causation.

But the algorithm is determined via observation, so how could the algorithm be the cause? 

Mathematics is a description of the universe. How does the math - even if it's in a Platonic Realm - become actual existence?

I light a match, and someone seeing this writes an equation. Even if the equation was extant in a Platonic sense eternally why would it cause the match to light?

p.s. I would say logic works because the logical truths are within the Universal Intellect, but also not sure why logic working can offer an explanation of causation.

It's causation because that's the mathematical relationship. If it wasn't the mathematical relationship, it wouldn't've happened. If I take the logical statements "A then B" and you ask what the cause of A moving to B is the answer is "the 'then' statement." Without that 'then' statement all you have is a list of two things, A and B. The logical path thus causes B from A.

I'm not able to find anything but names for the causal agent. In particular, what allows the agent to make a different decision under exactly the same circumstances?

~~ Paul

Agents can construct a future model as a plan and focus on the plans, as to their meaning.  The agent can assign probable outcomes to competing plans.  Think of these alternate outcomes as in super-position with real-world probability The will of the agent can enforce the outcome as to different focus on possible outcomes.  The agent can choose tea or coffee for the morning drink based on personal feelings freely chosen.

The trap here is the idealization of context when using a word like "exactly".  No circumstances are exactly the same; and the focus of the agent on one or the other choice - makes the circumstances equivalent physically - but different.  I would see the mind as a catalyst, not entering into the physical reaction, but as an attractor in building future plans.

 In the mathematical field of dynamical systems, an attractor is a set of numerical values toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system. System values that get close enough to the attractor values remain close even if slightly disturbed.

So far it seems the free will denial argument is "I can't prove every causal chain has to fit the deterministic/random dichotomy, and I can't explain how causation works, but I KNOW that free will cannot exist no matter what."

I am making no such argument. What's really going on in this conversation is that I'm asking for a description of free will that is beyond the deterministic/random dichotomy and you just keeping giving me trouble for preaching the dichotomy. I stopped preaching it pages ago.

Then there seems to be an insistence that someone has to show why the deterministic/random dichotomy is false or an exception exists...but isn't that an odd requirement to make of someone? We don't ask people to disprove God, assuming Its existence, after all. Someone has to show why the dichotomy is a valid thing to assume about reality.

Let's assume it's utterly and completely invalid. Now, will you give me a description of some other form of decision making?

Feel like I'm missing something, because I just don't see why anyone should take any of the presented "Free Will is Impossible" arguments seriously? Seems like a faith-based claim to me. *shrugs*

You can't be serious. So far, your argument doesn't even include a definition of free will. Because if we reject determinism and random as undefined, then "something other than determinism and randomness" is also undefined. So what is free will? [See next post.]

~~ Paul

Agents can construct a future model as a plan and focus on the plans, as to their meaning. The agent can assign probable outcomes to competing plans. Think of these alternate outcomes as in super-position with real-world probability The will of the agent can enforce the outcome as to different focus on possible outcomes. The agent can choose tea or coffee for the morning drink based on personal feelings freely chosen.

The trap here is the idealization of context when using a word like "exactly". No circumstances are exactly the same; and the focus of the agent on one or the other choice - makes the circumstances equivalent physically - but different. I would see the mind as a catalyst, not entering into the physical reaction, but as an attractor in building future plans.

How are "personal feelings freely chosen" actually chosen?

If you reject the assumption that a free agent can make a different decision under the same circumstances, because there never are the same circumstances, then I have no idea what your definition of free will is.

~~ Paul

How are "personal feelings freely chosen" actually chosen?

If you reject the assumption that a free agent can make a different decision under the same circumstances, because there never are the same circumstances, then I have no idea what your definition of free will is.

~~ Paul

I thought it was well expressed as mental "focus".  Free will is actualized thru the choice of attractors.  An agent can create logical choices that increase capability, productivity, satisfaction and knowledge thru focus on quality decisions.

Choices structure event outcomes.

[Image: quote-creativeness-is-liberation-from-sl...-57-36.jpg]


[Image: quote-creativity-is-the-supreme-mystery-...-57-31.jpg]


[Image: quote-freedom-is-the-power-to-create-out...-79-92.jpg]

I thought it was well expressed as mental "focus".  Free will is actualized thru the choice of attractors.  An agent can create logical choices that increase capability, productivity, satisfaction and knowledge thru focus on quality decisions.

Choices structure event outcomes.

I don't know what attractors are. This doesn't seem to explain why our choices are (supposedly) free.

~~ Paul