Free will, a Necessary Illusion

Originally posted by bjohnson407
I see absolutely no reason to accept this premise.

I see absolutely no reason to accept your statement at face value, much less as an empirical or theoretical invalidation of the premise; and since I directly apprehend and experience my own free will, no remarks by a spurious, putative, or actual "other being" can refute my firsthand, unconditional, and undeniable personal observations.

Originally posted by cpbrown
Free will is a necessary illusion:

Consider a) is "free will" (true to the common concept of it) empirically possible and b) what would happen if we didn't feel we had free will, in evolutionary terms.

I think the answers are a) no, all that science can help us with is either causality or randomness, neither of which constitute an ability to make "free ...[text shortened]... tional beings.

Hence, I hope that my initial statement stands supported.

(discuss) :p

a) sure it's empirically possible, why on earth wouldn't it be? Maybe science can't provide definitive evidence for free will, but that's not the question.

b) if we knew for a fact that we didn't have free-will, we would simply devise new moral codes for a freedomless world. as for apathy and destruction: we have plenty of that now, and we haven't gone extinct yet! we would still be driven by our urges to gratify our base 'instincts' and desires, right?

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I see absolutely no reason to accept your statement at face value, much less as an empirical or theoretical invalidation of the premise; and since I directly apprehend and experience my own free will, no remarks by a spurious, putative, or actual "other being" can refute my firsthand, unconditional, and undeniable personal observations.

Spurious? What's spurious is to claim, as you do, that "without freewill there can be no self." What is it about self-hood that necessitates freewill?

Of course there can be a self without freewill! It would be a purely determined self, but it's a self none the less.

I'm not denying that you experience your freedom directly -- I'm not compelled by those who argue that freedom is illusory. I'm denying that there is anything in selfhood that necessarily precludes the possibility of determinism. If you could explain to me WHY selfhood depends on freedom I might be convinced. But as it is, your argument stands on a bad supposition, that's all.

Originally posted by bjohnson407
This doesn't follow. Is consciousness "factually observed" to be "fundamentally distinct from physical systems"? Scientific reductivists will contend that "consciousness" is a sort of property that emerges from the operation of certain physical systems.

Your "fundamental difference" claim sounds alot like a Cartesian "substance dualism." You're not going in that direction, are you?

I'm sorry, but the sort of reductivism you refer to cannot be regarded as "scientific" since it is indeed hypocritical and dogmatic. That was already established by the careful and logical arguments I presented, which you reduced to an out-of-context "sound-bite", to which you have appended the ill-considered, undemonstrated, and erroneous assertion that what I have said "doesn't follow", as if it were some sort of logical refutation.

Sentient beings do not genuinely regard consciousness as an illusion since they experience it, and those who experience it would not genuinely classify it as a phenomenon of the same ontological order as a waterfall or a rockslide.

Substance dualism? No, though even mainstream scientists do not reduce the universe to some universal "substance" in their models, and distinguish leptons from quarks, and furthermore distinguish energy from matter (and this includes the gluons of quantum theory).

Originally posted by bjohnson407
And finally, (sorry to be picking on you so much, but there's alot to cover in your post 🙂 )...


How can you be a "solipsist" while at the same time "recognizing the role of the observer in the creation of reality"? If I'm creatin' it, how can I be fully seperated off from it?

*I* am the observer in my universe. And "you" are not sentient. "You" are merely some text on the screen which is the embodiment of pathological, contrarian influences.

Originally posted by bjohnson407
a) sure [free will is] empirically possible, why on earth wouldn't it be? Maybe science can't provide definitive evidence for free will, but that's not the question.

b) if we knew for a fact that we didn't have free-will, we would simply devise new moral codes for a freedomless world. as for apathy and destruction: we have plenty of that now, and we h we would still be driven by our urges to gratify our base 'instincts' and desires, right?

I take issue with the statement you have labeled as (b). How could we be said to "know" anything without free will? Even assuming (contrary to fact, and strictly for the sake of discussion) that consciousness can exist without free will, it remains true that without free will, your beliefs would be forced and you would also have no genuine reasoning, since that too would be forced, in every way and at every step. And how could it be said that, in response to forced conclusions (which may or may not be correct, since even your belief that they are logically necessary would also be forced), "we" could "devise" anything (including "new moral codes" ) in response, much less adopt and adhere to such codes? You don't seem to have the slightest conception of the implications of your premise.

Originally posted by bjohnson407
Spurious? What's spurious is to claim, as you do, that "without freewill there can be no self." What is it about self-hood that necessitates freewill?

Of course there can be a self without freewill! It would be a purely determined self, but it's a self none the less.

I'm not denying that you experience your freedom directly -- I'm not compelled by ...[text shortened]... might be convinced. But as it is, your argument stands on a bad supposition, that's all.

You have not shown that my assertion (that consciousness presupposes free will) stands upon a "bad supposition", but you have correctly suggested that it remains unelucidated.

The question you have asked, "What is it about self-hood [or consciousness] that necessitates freewill?" is a very good one, and deserves a good reply. A good reply must successfully convert ideas into words expressing them, and for that further reflection is necessary.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
*I* am the observer in my universe. And "you" are not sentient. "You" are merely some text on the screen which is the embodiment of pathological, contrarian influences.

So this "solipsism" you spoke of earlier was merely the denial of other minds, not the denial of the external world?

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
You have not shown that my assertion (that consciousness presupposes free will) stands upon a "bad supposition", but you have correctly suggested that it remains unelucidated.

The question you have asked, "What is it about self-hood [or consciousness] that necessitates freewill?" is a very good one, and deserves a good reply. A good reply must succes ...[text shortened]... ully convert ideas into words expressing them, and for that further reflection is necessary.

In other words, what you presented as fact earlier, you do not know to be true? I think what's commonly understood as a "bad supposition."

Originally posted by bjohnson407
So this "solipsism" you spoke of earlier was merely the denial of other minds, not the denial of the external world?

I have neither said nor implied this (or its contrary).

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I have neither said nor implied this (or its contrary).

what's "this"

you said quite clearly that you are a solipsist. could you clarify?

Originally posted by bjohnson407
In other words, what you presented as fact earlier, you do not know to be true?

There is sometimes a difference between knowing something is true and being able to cogently express it.

Originally posted by bjohnson407
what's "this"

you said quite clearly that you are a solipsist. could you clarify?

"This" was the statement you made, which I quoted in the same message in bold type, as the referent to which "this" referred.

I have just spent a great deal of time clarifying the issue of my solipsism in another thread, "Ben Stein Expelled:No Intelligence allowed", and to do so again would involve an onerous redundancy. I furthermore urge you to carefully read through and consider the entire thread before replying to any of it, either here or there. (This, of course, is a figure of speech, since I am a solipsist. It is shorthand for "I don't want to see any half-assed replies requiring my attention".)

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I take issue with the statement you have labeled as (b). How could we be said to "know" anything without free will? Even assuming (contrary to fact, and strictly for the sake of discussion) that consciousness can exist without free will, it remains true that without free will, your beliefs would be forced and you would also have no genuine reasoning, s ? You don't seem to have the slightest conception of the implications of your premise.

what exactly are the implications of this premise? A different conception of self? clearly. But not No-Self. If free-will is thought differently the self is thought differently, but this doesn't imply that No-free-will means no-self.

Originally posted by bjohnson407
what exactly are the implications of this premise? A different conception of self? clearly. But by not No-Self. If free-will is thought differently the self is thought differently, but this doesn't imply that No-free-will means no-self.

I have just pointed out a *few* of the implications of the (false) premise that consciousness can exist without free will. These include the implications that knowledge and reason are impossible under such a premise.

I'll try to get to some of the other implications shortly, if you'll give me a chance without having to respond to constant jack-in-the-box replies from you.