Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
I agree, but I didn't want to broaden my condemnation of philosophy. The thing is, in those 6 areas I mentioned above, a clear consensus on free will is NEEDED. I think one can happen with Neuroscience, and I am merely trying to push it along a tiny bit faster with a more clear definition.
-
On 11/9/2022 at 10:42 AM, Mike said: The details of Free Will and exactly how it works (if it is there at all) are a mystery in (1) science, in (2) religion, in (3) judicial systems, in (4) hospitals and clinics, in (5) addiction treatment programs, and in (6) everyday life. Free Will is important in all those areas, yet after thousands of years of discussion it is still way up in the air and not settled at all. WHY? This text does not question free will's existence. This text questions the existence of a clear consensus on free will in all 6 of those important areas. The reason for this is the terrible definition that has been foisted on Western civilization for about a thousand years. I have consistently said that I seriously doubt the existence of free will as it is classically defined. With a definition overhaul, I think that free will can be made clear, and a consensus can some day be possible.
-
Those books are all the data I am offering you. Take it or leave it.
-
No, I mostly talk this way with 2 of the professors. One of them was a grad student back then, and he actually encouraged me in the direction I took, and then liked what I came up with. We e-mail a lot about it. He sends me ideas and links of related issues. The other professor is retired now, but I still keep in touch and I have gotten encouragement there. The facebook groups are numerous (like 10) and different; some huge; some tiny. I occasionally encounter some responses, where I've even become good friends with a few postersw. I also get a sizable number of bad reviews. Represented in the groups are are pro free will (2 last count), anti free will (3), pro determinism (2), and Daniel Dennett (3).
-
Physics Nobel Prize winning physicist Roger Penrose wrote 2 large books that I got a lot of this from in the 1990s, and I discussed them often with the UCSD folks. They debunked the neuroscience that Penrose was proposing, and still oppose it. Penrose failed to follow up on this with all the promise he had in the two books. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics (1989) Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (1994) No one in the world questioned the accuracy of Penrose's Physics and Math in these 2 books. He was recognized as being at Einstein's level even then, 30 years before he won the Nobel Prize, which was just 2 years ago. I loved them, and was on Penrose's side, even though the UCSD folks opposed him on his neuroscience. But they eventually won me over after about 7 years. Penrose believes in 2 workarounds to free will: Quantum indeterminacy and Godel Incompleteness. I was in this school of thought from 1967 and was so happy to see Penrose writing on my favorite topics. But eventually his whole set of brain ideas fizzled for me, and I started over from scratch 9 years ago. My comments above are repeated in greater detail in my Chapter 5 which is all on determinism.
-
Thank you WW. You sensed the situation right. Outside of trying to answer any free will related posts, I've said about all I wanted to say.
-
The first discomfort that I described occurred over 50 years ago, and after getting into the Word, it subsided and simply became a strong interest. The second discomfort I described came after 45 years or so invested in finding a way to elude determinism, was lost and I took up the opposite approach. I was on new ground and it felt very odd, like I was going to change my mind and go back to supernatural free will. But the minFW idea caught on fire, and the discomfort ended. */*/*/*/* I think you are totally right about "this whole debate may be nothing more than a way of talking" if you look at the debate with a Philosophical perspective. Philosophy has NEVER seen this debate resolved because it did not have the power to investigate the inner workings of the human brain. All Philosophy had for thousands of years to work on the free will problem was WORDS, and it needed more than that. It needed scientific measurement, numbers, and the scientific method to do that. Modern Neuroscience is still pretty new, and it has not done this yet, but many now think that the unresolved issues of Philosophy can see some light as the study of the brain matures. Patricia Churchland pioneered this field, that of "updating" Philosophy with brain data, with her MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy." It is an excellent read. */*/*/* So, yes, I agree that the free will debate has been words chasing words to no avail, UNTIL the advent of Neuroscience, where the debate may soon be settled. But, no, this wild goose chase in the Philosophy end of the free will debate has not been a source of discomfort to me. I feel lucky I never got caught up in it.
-
That most of this will be cut out of my future boilerplate.
-
It still matters. Why do you think that having a robot-like body/soul would get rid of the importance of believing?
-
I did not project it on you, but only guessed it on to you, mainly because so many others are uncomfortable about free will being natural. I have interviewed a lot of people about this over the years. I wrote of this in my book chapters. My discomfort at the notion of free will being natural INTENSE when I first faced it in High School. But a lot of that discomfort subsided and was turned to a fascination when I got into the Bible about 4 years later. I vaguely remember the discomfort to be a threat to my Roman Catholic faith or attempt to have faith. It was like, "If there is no free will, then maybe there is no God!" and that was very uncomfortable to me. Late edit: add to this the discomfort I had 9 years ago when I switched from spiritual free will to natural free will. That was pretty intense discomfort also, but it subsided pretty fast, after the novelty wore off.
-
Ok, so you came close to answering my question here. Do you have a scripture reference for God saying we have free will? I want to consider all the evidence.
-
I have not mentioned this lately, but last year I had 4 eye surgeries. Right now I have massive muscle co-ordination problems that force me to squint one eye or wear an eyepatch to read with my best eye. I also have lost 80% of my peripheral vision to glaucoma, with blind spots that necessitate my "roving" over a scene or a screen to see everything. It was the case that I did not see your question well enough when I went back to look this morning.
-
Ok, I finally see it. But now I have to go back and see the context. It has something to do with the softballs not being padding, but to make it more comfortable. I am remembering more as I type. First off, I was addressing the softballs and the slightly uncomfortable item to everyone, not just you. I think that is why I dismissed this as too complicated to get into and moved on. I concede that may have looked like a dodge, but I was just prioritizing what other responses I had to type out, and avoided it. I am addressing it now for your sake. Before I go back to check the context, I can say this about the comfortableness. Yes, I admit that I was uncomfortable about changing from "free will is supernatural" to "free will is natural" about 9 years ago. I have already admitted that about 3 other times on this thread. I have noticed over the years that MANY things about free will make people uncomfortable, and I have mentioned that several times here. One of the big things that makes people uncomfortable is that maybe we aren't so wonderful and glorious after all. Francis Crick called facing this idea ASTONISHING, that we are natural and physical, and our brains and minds are not at all supernatural. I am calling the same idea UNCOMFORTABLE to lots of people. I was just guessing if you found it uncomfortable to think of free will as natural. And now we are full circle. I am less dense. You have your answer. I was not projecting; just making an educated guess that you, too, would be uncomfortable with the statement that free will is ONLY a natural phenomenon. Was my guess correct?
-
I plead "too dense." I looked at your last several posts and can't find what you are talking about. When you enlighten with some fresh text on it, I may be less dense about it, and answer you.
-
Believe me, I do WANT to answer him. Maybe you can tell me what I am dodging? I can't get So_crates to tell me what I am dodging.
-
Where do you stand on the issue currently at hand? Do you think free will is real or an illusion? I think it is real. Do you think free will is supernatural, spiritual, and can never be explained by science? Or do you think free will is natural, and science (if it is smart enough) can explain it, or at least parts of it? I think it is natural and explainable by science someday.
-
I STILL have no idea what you mean by be dodging. Please explain.
-
No. I explained this in my chapter 6, which was not posted in total, and spread out a little big. Two big chunks can be found on Page17, at the 45 % mark, and page 15, at 70%. It is one PATTERN of determinism that can be replace or overpower another PATTERN of determinism. For a simple lever, the pattern of determinism that is unacceptable is the heaviness of a rock that is too much for our muscles to budge. The pattern of determinism that we find acceptable is moving the long lever arm a long distance, in order to get the rock to move a short distance. I am glad to see that you are reading the early chapters of my theory. Thank you. That was a good question. I will remember to be more clear when re-writing that section, that it is not anything OUTSIDE determinism, but within.
-
Where is your thinking? Do you think free will is natural, and explainable by science, or at least parts of it? Or do you think free will is supernatural, spiritual, and inherently un-explainable in science?
-
I am comfortable with free will being natural and not supernatural. That brings us back on topic: determinism versus the illusion of free will. I say that we DO have some form of free will (not classical, and not an illusion) that is totally natural and biological.
-
Yeah, I am uncomfortable with you saying that I am dodging, when I have been putting a lot of effort to answer every detail of questions you pose to me. So, what am I dodging? If you can't remember, I would understand. I sometimes lose details or even entire posts in these posting flurries. I will drop the matter, unless you come back with a specific dodge. Meanwhile, does the question of free will being natural versus supernatural intrigue you in any way? It really is the central issue in this topic.
-
I have lost track of what you think I am dodging on. That is why I asked you. So, I ask again. What am I dodging? I think something just got lost in the shuffle. I will try my best to answer you, and not dodge. Meanwhile please think on free will being either natural or supernatural.
-
Why are YOU dodging my simple question? Which do you favor? Free will is spiritual or free will is natural?
-
What am I dodging?
-
Did you see my quote from page 1, pasted in immediately above? It did not have a tag for you.
