Since we have no free will, what purpose does/did consciousness serve?

[dimreepr]

Warm. I am saying that iNow's use of the concepts of 'control' and 'free will' is wrong.

 

Since the concept of control is not only wrong but illusory, why is free will any different?

Just to clarify, wrong is incorrect and illusory is beyond wrong because it leads too, incorrect equals whatever I decide.

Edited March 5, 2017 by dimreepr

[Eise]

Since the concept of control is not only wrong but illusory, why is free will any different?

 

The concept of control is not illusory at all. Do you step in your car without controlling the speed and the direction you are driving? Try to drive a car without controlling it. Or take the thermostat out of your heater. Doesn't it control the temperature of your house?

 

Every negative feedback system exerts control.

 

The error you make is to state that a controlling system should control out of thin air. But behind every negative feedback system there is a mechanism. Applying the concept of control to the internals of the system is a category error. And this is exactly what you are doing when you say that consciousness is not in control of the brain: of course not! You are looking into the mechanism! Of course you only find causally determined processes there! But that does not mean that we, as a whole, have no control.

 

Life is everything about control. Plants try to grow higher to get more light. Animals move to another environment, where temperatures are better for them. Beavers build dams so they adapt their environment to their needs. And the Dutch did the same with gaining land from the sea, in long term, carefully planned projects. In long term projects, of course consciousness is involved.

 

So I have really no idea why you say that control is illusory.

 

And of course you should not apply the concept of free will to the internals of the brain. Somebody who is not in control surely does not act from free will. On the opposite, having control is a necessary condition of having free will (but not a sufficient condition!)

 

As noted, I feel I've already wasted more time on this topic than I'd intended. I'm okay accepting that we disagree or approach the subject differently.

 

Yes. If you are not interested in looking into your philosophical assumptions, then this is a waste of time. To think you have no philosophical assumptions, because you wholly stick to science, is a huge self deception.

 

What are you asking me to demonstrate?

 

That you understand what I wrote. That you see that I understand what you wrote.

 

We do not have to agree. But to do this based on some straw giants, is very unsatisfactory.

 

I think we're too far apart on this for me to do so quickly.

 

Then take your time. Or do you prefer to stay in your philosophical dreams?

Edited March 7, 2017 by Eise

[dimreepr]

 

The concept of control is not illusory at all. Do you step in your car without controlling the speed and the direction you are driving? Try to drive a car without controlling it. Or take the thermostat out of your heater. Doesn't it control the temperature of your house?

 

Every negative feedback system exerts control.

 

The error you make is to state that a controlling system should control out of thin air. But behind every negative feedback system there is a mechanism. Applying the concept of control to the internals of the system is a category error. And this is exactly what you are doing when you say that consciousness is not in control of the brain: of course not! You are looking into the mechanism! Of course you only find causally determined processes there! But that does not mean that we, as a whole, have no control.

 

Life is everything about control. Plants try to grow higher to get more light. Animals move to another environment, where temperatures are better for them. Beavers build dams so they adapt their environment to their needs. And the Dutch did the same with gaining land from the sea, in long term, carefully planned projects. In long term projects, of course consciousness is involved.

 

So I have really no idea why you say that control is illusory.

 

I was talking philosophically and in the context of the question at hand, my point being, if we have no, or (at least) very limited, free will, then what can you possible be in control of?

 

The concept of control is not illusory at all. Do you step in your car without controlling the speed and the direction you are driving?

 

What happens when you're suddenly frightened; how much control do you have then?

Life is everything about control. Plants try to grow higher to get more light. Animals move to another environment, where temperatures are better for them. Beavers build dams so they adapt their environment to their needs. And the Dutch did the same with gaining land from the sea, in long term, carefully planned projects. In long term projects,

 

Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men.

 

No matter how carefully a project is planned, something may still go wrong with it. The saying is adapted from a line in “To a Mouse,” by Robert Burns : “The best laid schemes o' mice an'men / Gang aft a-gley.”

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Eise]

I was talking philosophically and in the context of the question at hand, my point being, if we have no, or (at least) very limited, free will, then what can you possible be in control of?

 

Hmmm... I thought I was very philosophical too. And the context is free will.

 

The point is that I do not agree with what is written in the topic title: we have free will, and consciousness plays a role in it.

 

One argument against free will is that we are not in control of our brain processes: that consciousness always follows brain processes, not the other way round. But I showed (here and here) that this is an invalid use of the concept of control. 'Control' can only be applied to mechanisms (ie. persons, in our case) as a whole, and then you see we have (a certain amount) of control. Please reread, and if you still do not agree, tell me why.

 

And I also showed that the exact order of brain processes and consciousness is not relevant. None of this is included in the daily use of the concept of 'free will', as I argued here. None of the examples is in contradiction with the daily meaning of 'free will':

 

A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations.

 

What happens when you're suddenly frightened; how much control do you have then?

 

Not every action of us is a free action. Some actions may come from me, but they do not agree with what I normally want. Reflexes surely belong to this category.

 

Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men.

 

Of course things might go wrong. But more than enough projects succeed. The Dutch did gain land from the sea, and the Hubble telescope worked in the end, and the Hadron Collider at CERN works to. Was that all done without planning, deliberating, correcting, without consciousness?

Edited March 7, 2017 by Eise

[dimreepr]

 

Hmmm... I thought I was very philosophical too. And the context is free will.

 

The point is that I do not agree with what is written in the topic title: we have free will, and consciousness plays a role in it.

 

One argument against free will is that we are not in control of our brain processes: that consciousness always follows brain processes, not the other way round. But I showed (here and here) that this is an invalid use of the concept of control. 'Control' can only be applied to mechanisms as a whole, and then you see we have (a certain amount) of control.

 

And I also showed that the exact order of brain processes and consciousness is not relevant. None of this is included in the daily use of the concept of 'free will', as I argued here. None of the examples is in contradiction with the daily meaning of 'free will':

 

A person is said to have free will if he is able to act according his own motivations.

 

If we have free will as you suggest then we aren't manipulable, then how do you explain Derren Brown's shows?

Not every action of us is a free action. Some actions may come from me, but they do not agree with what I normally want. Reflexes surely belong to this category.

 

Then our free will is limited and my argument stands.

Of course things might go wrong. But more than enough projects succeed. The Dutch did gain land from the sea, and the Hubble telescope worked in the end, and the Hadron Collider at CERN works to. Was that all done without planning, deliberating, correcting, without consciousness?

 

If you plant a peach tree, it matters not what plans you have for it, it'll be a peach tree.

[iNow]

To think you have no philosophical assumptions, because you wholly stick to science, is a huge self deception.

It's a good thing that's not what I think.

[Delta1212]

 

If we have free will as you suggest then we aren't manipulable, then how do you explain Derren Brown's shows?

 

 

Then our free will is limited and my argument stands.

 

 

If you plant a peach tree, it matters not what plans you have for it, it'll be a peach tree.

You seem, at the end, to be confusing planning with omnipotence. It is the argument that if evedything isn't within your power then nothing is.

[dimreepr]

You seem, at the end, to be confusing planning with omnipotence. It is the argument that if evedything isn't within your power then nothing is.

 

Not at all, as I've said in a previous post, it doesn't matter if these things are illusory; I still have to go to work tomorrow and earn enough to live.

But if you can recognise the difference life is so much easier.

[Eise]

 

If we have free will as you suggest then we aren't manipulable, then how do you explain Derren Brown's shows?

 

Then our free will is limited and my argument stands.

 

If you plant a peach tree, it matters not what plans you have for it, it'll be a peach tree.

 

Delta1212 already said it in all clearness:

 

You seem, at the end, to be confusing planning with omnipotence. It is the argument that if evedything isn't within your power then nothing is.

 

If Derren Brown can confuse me with his careful social manipulations, it does not mean that nothing what I do is according my will.

 

A limited free will does not mean no free will at all. Reread my definition of free will.

 

If I want to have an apple tree, I can certainly plant an apple tree. And if I plan to go home after writing this sentence, I certainly can do (it is 16:45 here now, it was enough for today).

[dimreepr]

If Derren Brown can confuse me with his careful social manipulations, it does not mean that nothing what I do is according my will.

 

A limited free will does not mean no free will at all. Reread my definition of free will.

 

 

I've never argued otherwise.

If I want to have an apple tree, I can certainly plant an apple tree. And if I plan to go home after writing this sentence, I certainly can do (it is 16:45 here now, it was enough for today).

 

But you can't make it grow.

Or guarantee you'll get home.

[StringJunky]

 

But you can't make it grow.

He can determine or influence how it grows. You can't stop the final destiny but you can choose the path that is taken. To put it in another, more fundamental, way: you can't stop the flow of energy but you can choose the form that it takes and where it goes before the final, determined, endpoint.

Edited March 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

A limited free will does not mean no free will at all. Reread my definition of free will.

 

 

Can you point to the place on the continuum, between completely limited and no limits, where free will begins?

He can determine or influence how it grows. You can't stop the final destiny but you can choose the path that is taken. To put it in another, more fundamental, way: you can't stop the flow of energy but you can choose the form that it takes and where it goes before the final, determined, endpoint.

 

That doesn't change the fundamental truth of my statement.

It doesn't matter how you try, you can't grow an infertile seed.

Edited March 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Delta1212]

 

Can you point to the place on the continuum, between completely limited and no limits, where free will begins?

 

 

That doesn't change the fundamental truth of my statement.

 

It doesn't matter how you try, you can't grow an infertile seed.

I'm not sure what that has to do with free will, though.

[dimreepr]

I'm not sure what that has to do with free will, though.

 

Really, which part?

[Delta1212]

 

Really, which part?

Well, in fairness, I probably subscribe to a slightly different determination of free will than the one put forth by Eise.

 

I think free will manifests as the ability to freely prioritize available options and act according to those priorities.

 

In which case a set of limited options does not actually restrict one's free will. The only way to curtail free will would be if some outside agent had a method of determining your priorities for you and in a manner that somehow precludes rejection of those priorities as a possibility, or if they have the ability to force you to act in a way that runs counter to your own priorities.

 

In both cases, this would require some form of mind-control as even run-of-the-mill coercion merely restricts your options rather than removing your ability to choose from among them.

 

Outside of science fiction or fantasy at this point, then, the only way to infringe on someone's free will is perhaps to drug them.

[dimreepr]

Well, in fairness, I probably subscribe to a slightly different determination of free will than the one put forth by Eise.

 

I think free will manifests as the ability to freely prioritize available options and act according to those priorities.

 

In which case a set of limited options does not actually restrict one's free will. The only way to curtail free will would be if some outside agent had a method of determining your priorities for you and in a manner that somehow precludes rejection of those priorities as a possibility, or if they have the ability to force you to act in a way that runs counter to your own priorities.

 

In both cases, this would require some form of mind-control as even run-of-the-mill coercion merely restricts your options rather than removing your ability to choose from among them.

 

Outside of science fiction or fantasy at this point, then, the only way to infringe on someone's free will is perhaps to drug them.

 

Have you read a single word I've written?

[Delta1212]

 

Have you read a single word I've written?

If I'm not understanding something that you are trying to communicate, perhaps you could find a way to restate it so that it will be more clear to me.

[dimreepr]

If I'm not understanding something that you are trying to communicate, perhaps you could find a way to restate it so that it will be more clear to me.

 

Quite right my apologies, I'll try and think of a way. +1

I'm not sure what that has to do with free will, though.

 

My point is both free will and control are essentially the same, in that they both exist and are illusory, at some level; and you can't know what that level is.

Even the decision to go to work, is influenced by the cultural norm and our natural desire to conform to the norm.

Edited March 8, 2017 by dimreepr

[Delta1212]

 

Quite right my apologies, I'll try and think of a way. +1

 

 

My point is both free will and control are essentially the same, in that they both exist and are illusory, at some level; and you can't know what that level is.

 

 

Even the decision to go to work, is influenced by the cultural norm and our natural desire to conform to the norm.

I disagree about that making anything illusory, though. There are lots of inputs that go into shaping who I am, and not all of those are under my control, it is true. But the fact that I did not choose to be me does not negate the fact that, given that I am who I am, I am making choices based on my personal priorities.

[dimreepr]

But the fact that I did not choose to be me does not negate the fact that, given that I am who I am, I am making choices based on my personal priorities.

 

We are basically agree, this from an earlier post.

 

 

Not at all, as I've said in a previous post, it doesn't matter if these things are illusory; I still have to go to work tomorrow and earn enough to live.

But if you can recognise the difference life is so much easier.

I disagree about that making anything illusory, though. There are lots of inputs that go into shaping who I am, and not all of those are under my control, it is true.

 

But accepting that they are an illusion is good for your health.

Imagine a world where people always ask, rather than order, you to do things (people work for friends, they skive from boss') and accept when you can't; and that's just accepting the illusion of control, imagine that world if we accepted the other illusions of life.

My point is, there is a point on that spectrum where it isn't illusory, but accepting we can't no where that point is, makes it easier to forgive the our mistakes and those of others.

[Delta1212]

I don't know, I find that relatively easy anyway. That seems more like a temperament thing than a philosophy of consciousness thing.

[dimreepr]

I don't know, I find that relatively easy anyway. That seems more like a temperament thing than a philosophy of consciousness thing.

 

And what decides our temperament?

[Delta1212]

 

And what decides our temperament?

Generally speaking, things other than what we believe about how consciousness and free will work.

[dimreepr]

My brother and I are almost clones, not only in appearance, and brought up in roughly the same conditions, yet we are essentially temperamental opposites.

Generally speaking, things other than what we believe about how consciousness and free will work.

 

Not sure I understand this, on the face of it you seem to agree with me but the subtext suggests otherwise, can you clarify please.

My brother and I are almost clones, not only in appearance, and brought up in roughly the same conditions, yet we are essentially temperamental opposites.

 

I'll highlight a couple of key variables in our shared life that can explain why I'm a loner/shy introvert, with a couple of true friends, that's prone to introspection and he's a loud brash extrovert, with many good friends, that's prone to 'Dunning and Kruger' moments.

 

I was born first (with regret and so treated with indifference) and he was born second (with hope and so was held close).

 

I can accept that, we can't control our emotions.

[Bender]

I can accept that, we can't control our emotions.

Nonsense. I have chosen a long time ago never to be angry or stressed, and I haven't been angry or stressed since. I used to fear heights, but decided not to a while ago, and now when I cross e.g. a rope bridge 100 m high, I don't even feel a thrill.