The Couch

how free will works

Comments on how free will works

Nando
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 2
Nando
Posted 11/29/11 - 4:44 AM:
Subject: how free will works
This is how a philosophical construct works where freedom is held to be real.

alternatives - mutually exclusive possible results in the future
choice - the act of realizing an alternative
agent - what does the job of choosing

Information like bits (0/1), or letters (a/z) consist of chosen alternativers. For example the letter "f" is a chosen alternative from the alphabet a-z.

In a choice information is created, by the choosing between the alternatives. It is a common mistake to think that one of the alternatives is transferred from the future to the present, or so to say that the result information in a choice comes from the future of alternatives. The result information comes from nothing, what exists in the future are the unchosen alternatives only, and only chosen alternatives are information. The result information coming from nothing, means it is entirely new in the universe.

Because the information comes from nothing, it therefore follows of logical neccessity, that the agent doing the choosing, can't objectively be established to exist.

Objectivity basically works by transferring information from an object to an observer. Here however we are dealing with a case in which information is created, so only after the choice is made is there any information to transfer to an observer. Only afterwards objectivity can work.

But no worries because we still have subjectivity. We can subjectively establish the agent to exist through free belief, using our own free will. Subjectivity works by making a choice about a choice.

So for example a person can go right or left, the person chooses right instead of left. Now what was it that made that person choose right instead of left?

To answer this question we must construct a choice for ourselves in relation to the choice made. So it means we must conjure up alternatives to choose from ourselves. For example:
alternative 1: it is hateful to go right instead of left
alternative 2: it is loving to go right instead of left
Now we choose from the alternatives, for example we choose 1.

We now have an answer to our question. This answer is subjective, saying the person is hateful says as much about ourselves as it does about that person.

That way the knowledge works consistently. Determinism only comes in after the fact, the choice has consequences.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 11/29/11 - 9:56 AM:

"Now what was it that made that person choose right instead of left?"

To be *certain: ask the person in question.

Anything else is just guesswork.









*poor word choice: I know it; you know it...quit nit-picking... wink

Edited by henry quirk on 11/29/11 - 10:27 AM. Reason: snarky clarification
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 11/29/11 - 10:02 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"Now what was it that made that person choose right instead of left?"

To be certain: ask the person in question.

Anything else is just guesswork.



I doubt that the person choosing 'right' against 'left' is always sure why he chose. Agency and 'reasoning' need not go together and even need not be inter-dependent.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 11/29/11 - 10:13 AM:

"I doubt that the person choosing 'right' against 'left' is always sure why he chose."

No doubt, but if one is looking to answer the question of 'why', it's wise to begin at the source (the individual in question).

All this hugger-mugger of generating a hypothetical 'agent' and ascribing motivation is wrong-headed.

If I want to know why Thinker does this or that: I need to interrogate Thinker...not create a model of him in my head and 'suppose'.

Asking Thinker may get me nowhere (if Thinker is in the dark as to his motivations), but 'supposing' about Thinker is GUARANTEED to get me nowhere.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 11/29/11 - 10:20 AM:

henry quirk wrote:

No doubt, but if one is looking to answer the question of 'why', it's wise to begin at the source (the individual in question).

All this hugger-mugger of generating a hypothetical 'agent' and ascribing motivation is wrong-headed.

If I want to know why Thinker does this or that: I need to interrogate Thinker...not create a model of him in my head and 'suppose'.

Asking Thinker may get me nowhere (if Thinker is in the dark as to his motivations), but 'supposing' about Thinker is GUARANTEED to get me nowhere.



I beg to differ partially. Pointing to the source as an individual is completely sane in my opinion, but, it is not always the plain interrogation which leads you to the true intentions.

Sometimes what you ascribe as 'hugger-mugger' might be the analysis based on myriads of individuals' behavior from past or present which might be closer to the truth than plain interrogation.

For example: If a person is not very coherent or good in communicating his ideas and yet seems in dire need of help ( which you make out based on your experience) you need not necessarily rely on interrogation to help him.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 11/29/11 - 10:25 AM:

"...the analysis based on myriads of individuals' behavior from past or present which might be closer to the truth than plain interrogation."

Oh, sure: finding the (happy) median works (sometimes).

I'm just sayin': if you wanna know why "that person choose right instead of left", the best place to start is by asking 'that person'.
Nando
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 29, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 2
Nando
Posted 11/29/11 - 11:02 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"Now what was it that made that person choose right instead of left?"

To be *certain: ask the person in question.

Anything else is just guesswork.

*poor word choice: I know it; you know it...quit nit-picking... wink


That's right, but that person also can only answer with a choice about their own choice, expressing their free will, and not state it matter of factly objectively, there being no information yet to transfer from object to observer at this point of choosing.

And in this view everything consists of chosen alternatives = information including planets, atoms and whatnot. Everything could have turned out another way alternatively, therefore everything consists of information.

And you can relate to all those choices in nature at large with your own free will in principle, except that it doesn't neccessarily do any good if you do that. In any case you can form a subjective opinion this way about the way nature turned out, in general reference to those decisions in nature.

Other philosophies about free will, are not really free, in that they more explain choosing as like calculating a best option, so that actually the best option is forced, and any alternative can't be realized.

And if you really get to the bottom of this information view of the universe, then at bottom the universe consists of nothing. From nothing derives the 1 as a rewrite of 0. Just like with a bit the 0 and 1 are interchangeable. So that you can have 0 and 1, but the totality is still nothing.

The only law of the universe is then that the totality of the universe can only be nothing. Socalled universal nilpotency rewrite system.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 11/29/11 - 11:21 AM:

"...not state it matter of factly objectively"

Sure: it's all subjective (as I see it; from my perspective, from where I stand, etc.)

Regarding 'free will' as placeholder: it's a poor one. Often, folks try to cram the phenomenon (the choosing individual) into the box of the placeholder, instead of simply observing the phenomenon and using a more appropriate placeholder.

I myself prefer agency/autonomy as 'I choose' is most descriptive of what 'I do'.

My choices are never unlimited (never 'free'): (my choice is always limited by how the world works and by the parameters of my flesh [my 'self']), but I always have a choice (rooted in personal preference and conscious [and 'self' conscious] analysis).

As I've said elsewhere: while mired in innumerable and intertwining causal chains, I can and do (and must) initiate new chains all the time.

As for all your initial post, Nando: can't make heads or tails of it.

#

"...that the totality of the universe can only be nothing"

Could you explain this?
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.