Can Freewill be understood through logical deduction?

[rebtevye25]

Can Freewill be understood through logical deduction?

 

If answers limit the possibilities,

And questions are the divisions of answers,

Then is understanding,

The product of knowing the questions,

That form the whole answer?

 

So where would one begin,

With a question like,

What is Freewill?

 

If the root prefers to express itself,

Through it's branches?

 

And the self prefers to express itself,

Through it’s language?

 

Then it seems that communication,

Probably starts from a whole thing,

And branches out through division.

 

If perception is comparison of divisions,

And the perspective of the self,

Is a whole thing separate of the selves.

 

Then what is it that the self cannot divide to compare?

 

Can nothing be divided into nothings?

 

And Can the what is that is there as a whole,

Be compared to anything else?

 

Imagine for a moment,

That there is no connection to the external world,

All sensors are inactive,

And have never been operational.

 

So there is no external input to the self.

 

What decisions or choices,

Can one make in this type of environment?

 

What is there to decide between?

 

And what does one choose out of the nothing?

 

So what is it to be aware?

 

Or what is it that we are aware of?

 

Is there a distinction between the self,

And the what it is that is there?

 

Now let's add minimal sensory input,

Just enough so that the self,

Can have a connection,

To the supposed external environment.

 

It seems logical to deduce,

That the only possible form of interaction,

Would be reaction to the input,

By making a comparison.

 

And comparisons are made,

By finding the differences between divisions,

Whether it is this way or that way.

 

Which is comparable to binary logic.

Either no input,

And no reaction,

Or input,

And reaction.

 

So what are the,

Processes and mechanisms,

Of the human mind,

That enables it to make Comparisons?

 

To go into that,

Lets imagine that the human mind,

Is like a ball of yarn,

That picks up particles,

In between it's threads.

 

The threads are the algorithm,

And the particles are the variables.

 

To know the entire algorithm,

One must account for all of the variables.

 

Because while It may be possible,

To see where some threads lead,

By only accounting for some variables,

And denying the others.

 

There may be a knot or a twist,

That causes a thread,

To lead into another direction.

 

The ball of yarn analogy,

Can also refer to the supposed external.

 

The threads are the what is that is there,

And the particles are the understanding,

Of the what is that is there.

 

Only when one can account for all the particles,

And not deny, Avoid or Discredit any of them,

Then one can understand the entire structure.

 

One could also look at the mind,

And the external like a puzzle.

 

When something new is understood,

A piece gets put into place.

 

After awhile,

The borders of the puzzle get filled in.

 

Without restructure,

Or going beyond the limits,

That we have placed upon ourselves,

Then the outside pieces,

Cannot get into the center.

 

So to understand how the mind works in it's entirety,

We must account for all the possibilities.

 

How does the self decide,

between going one way or another?

 

What happens when there is input?

 

Is there ever not any input?

 

So is it possible,

That the 5 senses are like a magnet,

And the synapses are like iron filings?

 

As one interacts with the what is that is there,

Then the chemical reactions connect,

And link the synapses in the now time.

 

Then what is memory?

 

Is memory a trail of colored rice left behind?

The leftovers of past chemical reactions,

That appear to still be there,

But are much less intense then the current input?

 

It seems that after awhile,

The memory gets distorted,

And much gets written over and lost.

 

But that is not to suggest,

That there is a such thing as time.

Because it seems likely,

That time is relative,

To the transference of energy.

 

If no energy is transferred,

Then nothing changes,

And there is no conceivable progression.

 

What would happen if there was a separation,

Between algorithm and variables?

 

Would the self still be able to react effectively?

 

If the algorithm compares differences,

And expresses itself onto a single thing,

To form links of subdivisions.

 

And the perceived subdivisions,

Become part of the algorithms matrix.

 

And divisions continually divide,

As long as energy is being transferred.

 

Then how long can the algorithm,

Maintain the external state of division?

 

Would perception be limited,

To only a certain number of possible divisions,

At any given moment?

 

What determines the reaction?

 

If energy travels,

The shortest path of least resistance.

 

And if the mind requires some form of energy to function.

 

Then it would seem that the reaction mechanism,

Would be governed in a similar way.

 

It appears that exposure to input,

Causes chemical reactions in the brain,

That form links and connections through the synapses.

 

So the higher frequency of exposure to similar input,

The more conductive the pathway will be to transmit a signal.

 

So The higher the frequency of occurrence,

The less resistive those pathways become.

 

How then do we appear to learn?

 

It seems that there is,

Constant input to those pathways,

And most likely,

They do not become narrower without change.

 

So if the input is the same,

Then the reaction will be same.

 

But because division,

Becomes a division within itself,

There appears to be change.

 

However that is not to say,

That there is even such a thing as just division,

Because energy transference,

Is also responsible for recombination.

 

If previous input chemical reactions,

Leave behind trace amounts of the reaction,

That aid in the transmission between synapses.

And the reaction process is influenced,

By both the current input stream,

And the left over components,

Of the previous state of mind.

 

How would that effect the judgment,

And decision making of the now self?

 

What is the desire and focus,

That we call freewill?

 

If a comparison determines whether or not,

Something is different from something else.

Then it seems the focus,

Would be on contradiction.

That is to say,

The focus is only acquired,

If it contradicts with the current variables,

Of the input stream.

 

Obviously the pathways that are effected,

By the input stream,

Are based on the sensory input frequencies.

 

So it would seem that the desire,

Is to remain the same.

 

But divisions will always,

Be the opposite of one another.

 

Because they can never be similar enough,

In divided form to be the same.

 

So the focus is channel limited to contradiction.

 

Have you ever become self aware in a dream?

 

What exactly were you aware of?

 

If you think about it for awhile,

Then you will probably realize,

That you were aware of how that reality,

Contradicted this reality.

That is to say,

You were aware that it was somehow different.

 

What is undesirable?

 

It seems that there are many words,

That make reference to,

The current conception of what is undesirable.

 

But what is it really?

 

If the self only reacts to the input,

And it's world model or paradigm,

Is consistent to its current state of being.

 

Then what is it that causes an unbalance?

 

If the supposed memory is a product,

Of both the algorithm and the variables,

And decisions are influenced by both the memory effect,

Of previous states of mind,

And the current state of mind,

And the mind expects reality,

To be either one way or the other.

 

Then perhaps contradiction of expectation,

Is what is undesirable.

 

Which is to say,

That all forms of the undesired,

Suffering, pain, torment,

Wrong, bad, foolishness, unhappiness,

Etc... Etc.. Etc.

Is merely the self,

Expecting it to be different.

 

Is it possible for there to be,

A radical revolution,

In the human thought process?

 

Could one just admire,

The what is that is there?

 

Without trying to control it,

Or understand it,

Or compare it,

Or even expect it to be a certain way?

 

What would happen then?

 

It seems that when one listens to music,

It is most often appreciated for what it really is.

 

So is it possible,

To appreciate reality as a whole,

For what it really is?

And not being channel limited to contradiction?

 

Where is division going?

 

Is it really going anywhere at all?

 

Is it possible that it only appears to change,

Because of binary logic,

And its divisional characteristics?

 

Perhaps there is really nothing to compare to.

And that it is a whole thing,

That is not divided.

 

Can one be aware of not being aware?

 

So what does that say about life and death?

 

How relevant is difference to a whole thing?

 

So is there really any difference?

 

Or is it the easy thing to say,

That something is one way or the other?

 

So if One believes that the self,

Only knows the surviving self,

Or the self of the now that has always been.

 

Then what becomes the desire?

 

What would be the path of least resistance?

 

Is it to continually fight and struggle,

By noticing contradiction and dividing,

The what is that is there?

 

Or accepting reality for what it really is?

 

It appears that if there is,

A such thing as division,

Then it can only sustain itself,

Until it divides.

 

So if the self requires division,

To sustain itself,

And divisions continually divide,

And the ability to react to input,

Still requires perception of difference.

 

How long can the divided self sustain itself?

 

It would seem that even now,

Divisions are at the point,

Where the differences are not entirely clear.

 

And the society of selves,

Have become almost dependant on communication,

To verify the difference between divisions.

 

Will the divisions become so great in number,

That most reactions,

Appear ordinary and common place?

 

Will the reactions,

To the perceived divisions,

Become so great in number,

That the basic nutritional needs of the self,

Will become unknown to the point,

That the divided self cannot be maintained?

 

Will the need to supply energy to the divided selves,

Require at some point,

Energy sources,

That cause genetic disorders?

 

Is it possible,

That these things are already occurring?

 

If division is the opposite of unification,

Then what is the word that represents,

The balance between the two?

 

If division can be divided in both directions,

Beginning at any number.

 

And a infinity symbol,

Can be drawn starting at any point.

 

Then could division,

Eventually catch up to itself?

 

If unification,

Is inevitable.

 

And a infinity symbol,

Can still be redrawn over itself.

 

Then could it be that,

The what is that is there,

Is a whole thing?

But at the same time divided?

And a beginning,

But also has always been?

 

So perhaps Infinity,

Is the word that best represents,

Unification,

And Division.

 

Does the self have Freewill?

 

If the self,

Is the what is that is there.

 

And the thought process freewill,

Is a reaction to the input,

Of the what is that is there.

 

Then could it be,

That the word Freewill,

Is the same as Infinity?

 

Can infinity be Divided?

Can infinity be Unified?

Can infinity be Neither?

Can infinity be Nothing?

Can infinity be Oppressed?

 

Written by: Giorgio Martoni

WGA Registration Number: 1210150

InfinityTree.org

[lucaspa]

So what are the,

Processes and mechanisms,

Of the human mind,

That enables it to make Comparisons?

 

Do a PubMed and Google search on "neural nets". Inputs and outputs are not binary in a biological system.

 

To know the entire algorithm,

One must account for all of the variables.

 

No. I think you have a misconception of what an "algorithm" is. An algorithm is a series of instructions that, followed by a servile dunce, always yields a result.

 

Long division is an algorithm. So is natural selection. We know both algorithms but the variables vary from example to example.

 

So to understand how the mind works in it's entirety,

We must account for all the possibilities.

 

No, we don't. Just like understanding how natural selection works does not require us to account for all the possibilities.

 

How does the self decide,

between going one way or another?

 

You do realize that there has been work done in this area, don't you? It's called neuroscience and the literature is quite extensive. You need to do a bit of readig on it.

2. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5544/1030 Review of memory and learning as chemical processes.

4. JG Nicholls, AR Martin, BG Wallace, PA Fuchs From Neuron to Brain, 2002

 

Is memory a trail of colored rice left behind?

The leftovers of past chemical reactions,

That appear to still be there,

But are much less intense then the current input?

 

See paper referenced above. Also add"

3. Genes involved in memory formation: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=106076

 

How then do we appear to learn?

 

See references posted above.

 

Then could it be,

That the word Freewill,

Is the same as Infinity?

 

No. Freewill is the concept that choices are made that are not determined solely by previous events. Infinity is a mathematical concept. So, yes, infinity can be divided. But not "oppressed". "Oppressed" is a political concept applied to sentient beings and, thus, does not apply to a mathematical concept. Infinity can no more be oppressed than zero can be.

[bascule]

The OP's subject is an interesting question, however the post body is too much for my Internet attention span. Sorry.

[someguy]

perhaps only the lack of freewill could be understood through logical deduction.

[Guest richardgb]

Can Freewill be understood through logical deduction?

 

No, will needs to be explained empirically, a priory.

The will of a higher entity manifests through each of us individually.

 

There are no layers of abstraction needed to look for and explain free will. No reasoning either, as many willful people are rather unreasonable.

 

WILL IS THE ULTIMATE REALITY

[armygas]

Why didn't you just post the site where that text came from?

 

http://www.infinitytree.org/

 

But consider this, neural networks aren't binary. We choose a behavior based upon the "most rewarding" now a choice can be good or bad but the choice we make will be the most rewarding choice at that time.

[lucaspa]

[quote name=richardgb;346213No' date=' will needs to be explained empirically, a priory.

The will of a higher entity manifests through each of us individually.[/quote]

 

How do you know this statement is true? How do you know, by scientific data, that there is a "higher entity" and that its will manifests through each of us individually?

 

Going further, how does having the will of a higher entity manifesting thru us give us free will? Wouldn't it be the opposite.

 

Also, how do you explain will of the higher entity empirically?

 

There are no layers of abstraction needed to look for and explain free will. No reasoning either, as many willful people are rather unreasonable.

 

WILL IS THE ULTIMATE REALITY

 

Sorry, but I don't think you understand the problem. Ultimately, the problem of free will is rooted in determinism and physics. If everything is a result of a previous cause and is determined by that previous cause, then how can there be "free will"? No choice would be "free" because it would have been determined by previous events/causes.

 

In the 19th century when determinism ruled physics, there was truly a problem of free will. However, in the 20th and 21st century, when quantum mechanics has destroyed pure determinism and we now know some events do not have previous causes, then the future is open and free will is possible.