What I want is to find out is who the other six "the men of god" are. Johniam said a music coordinator told him victor was "The 7th THE Man of God." Who is this music coordinator and who are the other six "THE Men of God"?
I never heard of this topic or anything like it, until there was a thread on it a few months ago. I don't think I even read that thread. but I see comments about it once in a while.
I'm happy to discuss determinism and the illusion of free will, as long a we get to the bottom of this T7TMOG thing. This goes to the heart of cult manipulation and cult leadership and what it means to be a cult.
I can see the Topic Police scratching their heads on this one: "Is it it Doctrinal or About the Way???"
I never heard of this topic or anything like it, until there was a thread on it a few months ago. I don't think I even read that thread. but I see comments about it once in a while.
Real simple: your boy, Johniam, said a music coordinator told him victor was The 7th THE Man of God (T7TMOG).
One way to prove you (Nathan, et.al) have free will is to consciously decide to no longer feed the troll and let threads like this die of neglect.
Yeah well people are more attracted to train wrecks. I’m talking to myself on the cults s3 thread because nobody wants to invest the time to make it through a teaching and discuss it. So instead that thread will die of neglect like about 80% of the ones I have started. It’s ok. People don’t have the interest or time. Maybe I’m curious why all the cult researchers lump the same groups together all the time. So I listen to 6 hours of another class that I partially agree with. And talk to myself. This is fine. I can find that teaching series easily through my thread.
So I guess we are more inclined to attack apologist trolls than we are to develop certain types of thinking.
You yourself are posting here as opposed to other threads, right? Physician and self healing ? Lol.
If you think free will is complicated or mysterious right now, this is just the beginning! It’s going to get worse, and soon.
Free will has always been an edgy item, but with the rapid advance of A.I. and robots, all public thought about free will is poised to plunge over a Niagara Falls of churning confusion.
Free will is one the most heavily used “mechanisms” in everyday human life, and yet, it’s also one of the least understood ideas in the entire scientific world. This is not a coincidence! It was bound to be. But this will take a long time to explain, so let’s save it for a later chapter.
Right now, I want this discussion of free will (FW) to be useful to people in real life, as well as useful to the scientific community. We need to talk practicality in everyday life, and we need to get to some clarity that is consistent in scientific terms. Both need to happen.
Free will is one of the most baffling mysteries in the whole world. It’s been that way for thousands of years, so don’t feel bad if it’s confusing to you now. It’s that way with everybody. What can be exciting is making some significant progress in understanding a few pieces of it.
*/*/*
One of the confusions that plagues FW discussions is the fact that the phrase “free will” is rather poorly defined in most people’s heads. I’ve guessed at several possible reasons.
One reason is that FW is complicated and confusing, so people don’t talk about it for very long. When they do, they don’t do it in a very organized fashion, and it jumbles up. Scholars go about it with great organization, but they easily go overboard it seems, and they make it pretty much inaccessible to everybody else, by camouflaging it with too much technical jargon.
Not only is FW confusing, but there can even be negative emotional associations with it. For some people, FW can be a topic associated with personal failure and shame, because of a perceived lack of “will power,” or the memory of a particularly bad decision.
Few people are able to state in much detail anything about it with confidence, and people spend their time wondering about it with each other, at most.
*/*/*
Whenever I have an extended FW related conversation, I find it useful to poke around to see what usage of the phrase “free will” the other person prefers. From this activity I have found that there are MANY different usages of the phrase “free will” floating around out there.
I have noticed that many people have pet definitions for FW. They can invent their own attributes or parameters for FW, and thus have a “personalized” definition. Sometimes these definitions drift around from decade to decade, or from context to context.I know that mine SURELY did. I even suspect that many invent details and parameters on-the-fly for FW, as the topic pops up in conversation.
I did not know there were so many varieties of FW theories until I started discussing it intensely with people in recent years. A few months ago, I saw some charts detailing around 20 varieties of FW. But don’t worry. The LAST thing I want to do here is to start groping through those kinds of things.
PARAMETERS OF DEFINITION
There are lots of different varieties of FW because people have different ideas as to how it works. Just how free they can be, or how many types of freedoms that they enjoy is up for grabs when it comes to theorizing about it. Often, I’ve seen that people pick and choose the kind of FW they imagine to be ideal or fair to everyone.
When it’s actually being performed in the real world, it seems that FW is an entirely different kind of beast to contend with, compared to theoretical FW. It looks good in flowery words, but often in real life it seems to be not so free at all. To me, it looks like a chaotic war of competing desires; not fun; lots of failure.
*/*/*
We can collect a few of the FW parameters hidden in people’s definitions by asking them specific questions about FW.
Adding to “how much” FW we can have, we could ask exactly OF WHAT is FW actually free? Or, what is it independent from? This is a big question to consider.Some people think it’s free of every possible influence; some think less. HARDLY anyone nails it in any specific, consistent way! Hardly anyone even gets to this specific a question.
*/*/*
How about asking “when” FW happens?
Does FW happen at one point in time or is it spread out over a duration of time. In other words, is it a real time instantaneous event, or does it appear later as a change?Is it sudden or gradual? Does it take repetitions to make it work, or it does it work the first time, every time?
Another parameter:
When do people get FW? Does it happen when you’re born? Or when you reach age seven?Or after you get a degree in philosophy?
Is FW a thing that’s automatically installed?
Or do you have to work for it, or wait for it?
How often do we use FW? Once a day?
Or is it hundreds of times per day?!
Once a month?
All these issues are the sorts of parameters that get built into a lot of people’s definitions, but are very subconscious and well hidden. I’ve seen people get surprisingly uncomfortable when pressing them on too many details like this.
*/*/*
More parameters:
How much effort goes into exercising FW is another thing to consider. Is FW effortless? Or does it take a little bit of work? Or a lot of work?
Can you fail at free will? Can you say, “Okay, I’m going to exercise my free will now,” and …whoops! It didn’t work that time! Can that sort of thing happen according with your definition of free will?
And what about will power? What makes it strong or weak?
Why do we have free will?Or seem to have it?
What are its benefits, if any?
These are things to ponder and prepare for more discussion later.
*/*/*
Still more parameters:
Do some people get “more” FW than others?Or is it given in equal amounts to all? Do we want to say that Free Will should also be called FAIR Will?It’s surprising how many want to inject the element of fairness into their definitions of FW. It’s probably old religious influences.
*/*/*
Another parameter:Pureness of FW
Some people’s version of FW has it operating 100% of the time.
Others recognize that SOME robotic actions are possible, and some even WANT them for efficiency.
So, there’s a “Pureness Ratio” that can be included in a FW theory/definition. Actions proceeding from FW compared to robotic actions indicate this pureness of FW action. Differing people’s definitions of FW can have differing pureness ratios built in or expected.
*/*/*
I have been experimenting with actually asking people these kinds of questions as part of my research. I also study their facial expressions and body language when hitting them with these probes.
Here are some more examples:
Are you able to tell the difference between your robotic decisions and your FW decisions?
When was the last FW decision you made?
Does it take more effort to make a FW decision than a robotic one?
Have you ever tried to make a FW decision, but failed, and responded robotically?
Can you tell if someone else has made a FW or a robotic decision?
Do you think, with advanced technology of future neuroscience, we will ever be able to tell the difference between robotic decisions and FW decisions in a living human?
*/*/*
I find that FW advocates often ask for WAY too much in their definitions, and this has been going on for many centuries. It gets magical, how much freedom they ask for. These mystical forms of theoretical FW insist that it is instantaneously available, and that it imparts a kind of limited immunity to the laws of physics, chemistry, and learning.
This is akin to a miracle happening (or a bunch of micro miracles) every time a FW decision is made.
Often religious people want a kind of FW that is able to overcome all temptation to sin. This FW, they might theorize, happens with someone becoming spiritually enlightened.
*/*/*
Another set of polling questions is:
If FW were an immunity to the laws of physics, is it a partial immunity or total one? Which parts? Is it all the time, or just some of the time?Does it work for some things and not work for other things? All these types of questions need to be asked and cataloged in future work.
In some of these mystical definitions, it requires no physical energy at all to operate FW, as if FW is not fully participating in the physical universe. Yet it can still actuate muscles!A magical one-way connection, no doubt.
In classical FW definitions there are no prior physical causes of a freely willed action. The action just pops in out of the blue, and is completely different than the action which all the collective brain/nerve/muscle systems were poised to act out.
Here, the action of FW is considered outside the normal lines of causation. It’s the essence of the miraculous FW mentioned above.
In some definitions FW is so mystical and magical that it is thought to be beyond explanation, and that it eludes comprehension in principle, and with great efficiency.
Then there’s the scientific community where many regard FW as an illusion, or at best, a useful fiction. There seem to be a variety of ways FW is scientifically regarded as pretty much obsolete. A few scientists will still stand up and give a valiant defense for FW.
Another problem I see is the mixing of several kinds of very technical definitions for FW with everyday life types of definitions. Philosophers use the term “free will” in their ways, as do the workers in the neuroscience fields, as do workers in the justice system.
There seems to be a very wide range of descriptions people want FW to be (or not be). The more I read and discuss FW, the more I sense an entire spectrum of meanings.
*/*/*
Another very ODD part of the confusion, wrapped up in centuries old debates on FW versus determinism, is that the thoughts generated in such debates can trick some people to drift into a mini cognitive dissonance.
This is where people accidentally try to hold two opposing thoughts in their mind at once. The result is massive confusion, and even mild fight-or-flight reactions.Learning how to avoid this is easy if you know what to look for. Again, discussion on this phenomenon will be in a following chapter.
*/*/*
But which definition, theory, or model of FW (or lack of FW) will eventually be verified in the laboratory of scientific measurement as the type we humans have?Many scientists feel that whatever does happen to emerge from neuroscience, it will need an entirely new word coined to facilitate clear discussion about it, and to avoid associations with the many wrong models of FW.
I somewhat agree with this drive to find a new word to use, but at the same time I don’t want to confuse people who are far removed from neuroscience. The term “free will” happens to be a part of their lives, and has been for centuries.
I feel it will be easier to tell non-scientists that their “free will” definition needs to be MODIFIED, and the parameters fixed a bit.
Much more difficult IMO, would be to try and tell the general population “You people don’t have free will at all. You never did! Now, we scientists have got this technical stuff for you, that you might like hearing about…”and SLAM! goes the door.
But I’m willing to compromise, because the need for a new word is great in the science community. Scientists, too, can have the same flakey set of FW definitions I described above floating around in their heads, even in neuroscience.Not everyone in science is up to the challenge of FW, and many would greatly prefer to work in their specialty where FW doesn’t come up.
My desire is moving towards order in this issue so things can be discussed better.This is a need in our society. The phrase that I’m using for my theory is “Minimalistic Free Will” or “minFW” to distinguish it from all the others.Soon I’ll explain better what is minimal and why. Briefly, though, this is a result of my seeing that a pretty much “maximum” model has been used, traditionally, and things got very messy.
*/*/*
My ultimate concerns in this matter are the:
(1) advancement of neuroscience,
(2) better medical treatments for some mental illnesses, and
(3) clearing the muddy waters regarding personal responsibility.
I see (3) as a raging need in all levels of society, and for people of almost every IQ level, as well as for the justice system and institutions of education.
*/*/*
Now, here are a couple of simple and more common definitions (thanks to a friend) for FW as the idea usually pops up in everyday language:
“The ability to choose between more than on viable option or action, in which that choice was up to the chooser.”
And:
“The ability to have, of one’s own accord, chosen otherwise than they did.”
Some call this Libertarian Free Will; some call it Contra-Causal Free Will.
It’s where the chooser ALONE, and none of the laws of physics or neurobiological synapses interfere or participate.This kind of theoretical FW could involve many such miraculous decisions daily!
This is the kind of FW many scientists aim at, as they demonstrate that FW does not exist, and that it is an illusion, or at best a useful fiction.
*/*/*
I soon will be explaining a minimal model for FW that will be fundamentally different, and might also be called “internal will” or “gradually built will.”This model will be 100% deterministic, as well as Minimalistic.
This model allows the will to grow in its ability to resist some outside influences like OTHER WILLS, but it starts out totally dependent on the nature/nurture programming that it is given. This internal will has the ability to edit or modify itself, but not easily.
For the most part, we do NOT experience these micro phenomena one bit at all. They are invisible to us.How are we to make viable decisions regarding micro brain circuitry if we can’t experience that world. We can’t; but we also don’t need it to live life.
I think we are biologically endowed with a system that grows a will in us, and it starts very shortly after birth for human babies. By age 6 many children are able to edit their own internal wills a little bit through memorization. Some humans are sadly not very good at this for various reasons.There is a bell curve on these skills. just like all skills.
I also believe that the simple model for FW that I will be proposing can be designed and installed in crude ways into computer AI programs.If this proposed model is ever verified in the laboratory, it will mean robots could eventually have the same level of FW as humans.This will dramatically affect society, more than we can estimate.
*/*/*
I see one last chance to say this before we begin:
Why talk about FW? It’s because it’s an emergency!
This topic that I’m analyzing, free will, is not a normal one.This topic has been in hot debate for thousands of years, but instead of clearing up over the centuries, it has gotten even more out of hand in recent decades.
For 25 years I’ve been anticipating the days we are living in right now with Artificial Intelligence all around us and growing fast. It’s just a short time away and children will be asking adults if robots have feelings or free will. Adults will not know the answers any better than the kids, though. Sermons will be preached on whether God can hear the prayers of a robot… or not. People will feel cheated if they think they are talking to a human, and it turns out to be a robot.This can even lead to violent situations, if you consider the cognitive dissonance I mentioned earlier.
We are heading for a cultural crunch that will be very confusing to everyone. Even Robots’ Rights may become a real political force at some point.I am personally against this, but it looks like many could want it.
In addition to these unique scientific advancements in machinery, is the strange situation that EVEN SCIENTISTS have pretty much no idea what is really going on in the area of free will, neither in humans, nor in animals, nor in machines.
The top intellectuals of our culture have no firm consensus on whether we even have any such freedom. The best they can offer is that classical FW does not actually exist. They analyze endlessly on whether we should (or should not) assign credit or blame in human behavior, if we are all automatons like robots.
*/*/*
Every human being has a vested interest in learning how to improve their own will power, and possess the ability to sculpt their own consciousness and habits. Everyone struggles with issues of their own self-control, or sometimes worse, with the self-control problems of other people.
So, in addition to my own personal excitement in finding some new clues to this whole gigantic puzzle, I also feel a sense of cultural urgency is attached to it.Understanding better, both artificial intelligence and our own intelligence is quickly becoming a necessity.
*/*/*
It seems academic people are on a hair trigger for discussions on free will; pro or con. It’s a gnawing curiosity in the scientific age. It’s endlessly popping up in discussion and life. Our whole culture is wondering if free will exists or not. Will power (or lack of) is a daily issue with just about everyone.
I think it’s the sudden ubiquitous emergence of robots and A.I. that has everyone backed into an existential corner, asking lots self-referential questions.
My theory can be a little bit rambling, because I am developing the ideas as I write, sometimes. The next effort will be more elegant, hopefully.
The name I gave to the kind of Free Will (FW) that I am proposing is "Minimalistic Free Will" or minFW for short. It is different from what people commonly think about when FW is the topic.
The first thing for you to know is that, at the moment, my research is addressed primarily to laboratory scientists who work with brain cells. I want to inspire them to look for the kind of mechanism I am theoretically proposing.
So, this is NOT addressed to believers, yet, but the results are simple and can be used for getting better results.
Oddly, the Bible seems to have very little to say about FW. It documents decisions a lot, but not about how free each decision was. I did get 3 tips from VPW, though, that I mentioned last week.
These 3 tips are:
1 - FW is not supernatural or spiritual. It is a biological function that even natural men have, and need to believe Romans 10:9
2 – You cannot control the thoughts that hit your mind, but you can control whether or not they can lodge there.
3 – Loss of muscular control is not good. We use our FW to move our muscles, lips, and throat, as we were taught how to SIT.
So, this approach I am taking is to explain things for the simple, animal, biological, brute beast WITHOUT spirit, and how they can make free will decisions.
I am thinking of simple, mundane, boring decisions….and not crucial life decisions.
The way science works is to start with the most simple situation, so this analysis completely omits any spiritual abilities and augmentations we enjoy, having spirit.
It’s starting at the beginning with simple animal decisions.
*/*/*/*
Here is a short summary of where I am going with all this:
Minimalistic Free Will is the ability to self-sculpt one's own will, desires, and activities to match another's will.
This sculpting process is difficult and requires persistent efforts.
This process is really just complicated, self-directed learning.
*/*/*/*
My position is that FW was poorly defined around the 1200s by theologians like Thomas Aquinas, and then secularized by the Enlightenment Philosophers around 400 years ago.
This terrible definition has saturated Western thinking, and complicated it immeasurably.
We humans do NOT have free will, as it has been classically defined.
We can, however, learn and progress in the area of making better decisions.
More explicitly, I believe that we have no Libertarian Free Will. Our biology only supports a weak, delayed form of Minimalistic Free Will, that I am seeing more and more as a complicated configuration of self-directed learning.
This minimalistic FW is sufficient to get the job done.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Mike
I never heard of this topic or anything like it, until there was a thread on it a few months ago. I don't think I even read that thread. but I see comments about it once in a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can see the Topic Police scratching their heads on this one: "Is it it Doctrinal or About the Way???"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Real simple: your boy, Johniam, said a music coordinator told him victor was The 7th THE Man of God (T7TMOG).
Call your boy. I want answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Shemaiah, Igdaliah
Oops, it appears Vic was absent the day the list came out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This is About the Way. All the way. From San Diego to Portland, Maine. it's about the Way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL
I am completely in the dark on this. sorry
Maybe you should start a thread on it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He probably got really business hatching new postulates and cumulative dichonium peptidiol shontalay methodology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I just did. Call your boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh johniam!
Hello, do you hear me JOHNIAM?
johniam !
He doesn't answer.
Maybe he doesn't like you calling him my boy?
What brought that on?
Maybe I should let you two settle it here on this thread or on a music director thread.
Let me know when you have the situation under control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This is the thread to settle T7TMOG. Once that's settled, we'll discuss the illusion of free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
One way to prove you (Nathan, et.al) have free will is to consciously decide to no longer feed the troll and let threads like this die of neglect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah well people are more attracted to train wrecks. I’m talking to myself on the cults s3 thread because nobody wants to invest the time to make it through a teaching and discuss it. So instead that thread will die of neglect like about 80% of the ones I have started. It’s ok. People don’t have the interest or time. Maybe I’m curious why all the cult researchers lump the same groups together all the time. So I listen to 6 hours of another class that I partially agree with. And talk to myself. This is fine. I can find that teaching series easily through my thread.
So I guess we are more inclined to attack apologist trolls than we are to develop certain types of thinking.
You yourself are posting here as opposed to other threads, right? Physician and self healing ? Lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL. How to NOT do a new thread: stick a distracting tangent right into the initiating thread. LoL
Is it too late for you to revamp your initiating post with an edit?
Just remove all mention to the music coordinator and start talking about free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Lol from the #1 sh1tp0ster who never started a thread here but pollutes everyone else’s.
Hey irony boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
As you have been with pretty much everything you've posted on GSC over the last two decades.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Did you mean shonta-poster?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you mean to talk about your great interest in free will versus determinism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL. I just realized we were talking about free will in the PFAL sucks thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Minimalistic Free Will
Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Need
###############################
If you think free will is complicated or mysterious right now, this is just the beginning! It’s going to get worse, and soon.
Free will has always been an edgy item, but with the rapid advance of A.I. and robots, all public thought about free will is poised to plunge over a Niagara Falls of churning confusion.
Free will is one the most heavily used “mechanisms” in everyday human life, and yet, it’s also one of the least understood ideas in the entire scientific world. This is not a coincidence! It was bound to be. But this will take a long time to explain, so let’s save it for a later chapter.
Right now, I want this discussion of free will (FW) to be useful to people in real life, as well as useful to the scientific community. We need to talk practicality in everyday life, and we need to get to some clarity that is consistent in scientific terms. Both need to happen.
Free will is one of the most baffling mysteries in the whole world. It’s been that way for thousands of years, so don’t feel bad if it’s confusing to you now. It’s that way with everybody. What can be exciting is making some significant progress in understanding a few pieces of it.
*/*/*
One of the confusions that plagues FW discussions is the fact that the phrase “free will” is rather poorly defined in most people’s heads. I’ve guessed at several possible reasons.
One reason is that FW is complicated and confusing, so people don’t talk about it for very long. When they do, they don’t do it in a very organized fashion, and it jumbles up. Scholars go about it with great organization, but they easily go overboard it seems, and they make it pretty much inaccessible to everybody else, by camouflaging it with too much technical jargon.
Not only is FW confusing, but there can even be negative emotional associations with it. For some people, FW can be a topic associated with personal failure and shame, because of a perceived lack of “will power,” or the memory of a particularly bad decision.
Few people are able to state in much detail anything about it with confidence, and people spend their time wondering about it with each other, at most.
*/*/*
Whenever I have an extended FW related conversation, I find it useful to poke around to see what usage of the phrase “free will” the other person prefers. From this activity I have found that there are MANY different usages of the phrase “free will” floating around out there.
I have noticed that many people have pet definitions for FW. They can invent their own attributes or parameters for FW, and thus have a “personalized” definition. Sometimes these definitions drift around from decade to decade, or from context to context. I know that mine SURELY did. I even suspect that many invent details and parameters on-the-fly for FW, as the topic pops up in conversation.
I did not know there were so many varieties of FW theories until I started discussing it intensely with people in recent years. A few months ago, I saw some charts detailing around 20 varieties of FW. But don’t worry. The LAST thing I want to do here is to start groping through those kinds of things.
PARAMETERS OF DEFINITION
There are lots of different varieties of FW because people have different ideas as to how it works. Just how free they can be, or how many types of freedoms that they enjoy is up for grabs when it comes to theorizing about it. Often, I’ve seen that people pick and choose the kind of FW they imagine to be ideal or fair to everyone.
When it’s actually being performed in the real world, it seems that FW is an entirely different kind of beast to contend with, compared to theoretical FW. It looks good in flowery words, but often in real life it seems to be not so free at all. To me, it looks like a chaotic war of competing desires; not fun; lots of failure.
*/*/*
We can collect a few of the FW parameters hidden in people’s definitions by asking them specific questions about FW.
Adding to “how much” FW we can have, we could ask exactly OF WHAT is FW actually free? Or, what is it independent from? This is a big question to consider. Some people think it’s free of every possible influence; some think less. HARDLY anyone nails it in any specific, consistent way! Hardly anyone even gets to this specific a question.
*/*/*
How about asking “when” FW happens?
Does FW happen at one point in time or is it spread out over a duration of time. In other words, is it a real time instantaneous event, or does it appear later as a change? Is it sudden or gradual? Does it take repetitions to make it work, or it does it work the first time, every time?
Another parameter:
When do people get FW? Does it happen when you’re born? Or when you reach age seven? Or after you get a degree in philosophy?
Is FW a thing that’s automatically installed?
Or do you have to work for it, or wait for it?
How often do we use FW? Once a day?
Or is it hundreds of times per day?!
Once a month?
All these issues are the sorts of parameters that get built into a lot of people’s definitions, but are very subconscious and well hidden. I’ve seen people get surprisingly uncomfortable when pressing them on too many details like this.
*/*/*
More parameters:
How much effort goes into exercising FW is another thing to consider. Is FW effortless? Or does it take a little bit of work? Or a lot of work?
Can you fail at free will? Can you say, “Okay, I’m going to exercise my free will now,” and …whoops! It didn’t work that time! Can that sort of thing happen according with your definition of free will?
And what about will power? What makes it strong or weak?
Why do we have free will? Or seem to have it?
What are its benefits, if any?
These are things to ponder and prepare for more discussion later.
*/*/*
Still more parameters:
Do some people get “more” FW than others? Or is it given in equal amounts to all? Do we want to say that Free Will should also be called FAIR Will? It’s surprising how many want to inject the element of fairness into their definitions of FW. It’s probably old religious influences.
*/*/*
Another parameter: Pureness of FW
Some people’s version of FW has it operating 100% of the time.
Others recognize that SOME robotic actions are possible, and some even WANT them for efficiency.
So, there’s a “Pureness Ratio” that can be included in a FW theory/definition. Actions proceeding from FW compared to robotic actions indicate this pureness of FW action. Differing people’s definitions of FW can have differing pureness ratios built in or expected.
*/*/*
I have been experimenting with actually asking people these kinds of questions as part of my research. I also study their facial expressions and body language when hitting them with these probes.
Here are some more examples:
Are you able to tell the difference between your robotic decisions and your FW decisions?
When was the last FW decision you made?
Does it take more effort to make a FW decision than a robotic one?
Have you ever tried to make a FW decision, but failed, and responded robotically?
Can you tell if someone else has made a FW or a robotic decision?
Do you think, with advanced technology of future neuroscience, we will ever be able to tell the difference between robotic decisions and FW decisions in a living human?
*/*/*
I find that FW advocates often ask for WAY too much in their definitions, and this has been going on for many centuries. It gets magical, how much freedom they ask for. These mystical forms of theoretical FW insist that it is instantaneously available, and that it imparts a kind of limited immunity to the laws of physics, chemistry, and learning.
This is akin to a miracle happening (or a bunch of micro miracles) every time a FW decision is made.
Often religious people want a kind of FW that is able to overcome all temptation to sin. This FW, they might theorize, happens with someone becoming spiritually enlightened.
*/*/*
Another set of polling questions is:
If FW were an immunity to the laws of physics, is it a partial immunity or total one? Which parts? Is it all the time, or just some of the time? Does it work for some things and not work for other things? All these types of questions need to be asked and cataloged in future work.
In some of these mystical definitions, it requires no physical energy at all to operate FW, as if FW is not fully participating in the physical universe. Yet it can still actuate muscles! A magical one-way connection, no doubt.
In classical FW definitions there are no prior physical causes of a freely willed action. The action just pops in out of the blue, and is completely different than the action which all the collective brain/nerve/muscle systems were poised to act out.
Here, the action of FW is considered outside the normal lines of causation. It’s the essence of the miraculous FW mentioned above.
In some definitions FW is so mystical and magical that it is thought to be beyond explanation, and that it eludes comprehension in principle, and with great efficiency.
Then there’s the scientific community where many regard FW as an illusion, or at best, a useful fiction. There seem to be a variety of ways FW is scientifically regarded as pretty much obsolete. A few scientists will still stand up and give a valiant defense for FW.
Another problem I see is the mixing of several kinds of very technical definitions for FW with everyday life types of definitions. Philosophers use the term “free will” in their ways, as do the workers in the neuroscience fields, as do workers in the justice system.
There seems to be a very wide range of descriptions people want FW to be (or not be). The more I read and discuss FW, the more I sense an entire spectrum of meanings.
*/*/*
Another very ODD part of the confusion, wrapped up in centuries old debates on FW versus determinism, is that the thoughts generated in such debates can trick some people to drift into a mini cognitive dissonance.
This is where people accidentally try to hold two opposing thoughts in their mind at once. The result is massive confusion, and even mild fight-or-flight reactions. Learning how to avoid this is easy if you know what to look for. Again, discussion on this phenomenon will be in a following chapter.
*/*/*
But which definition, theory, or model of FW (or lack of FW) will eventually be verified in the laboratory of scientific measurement as the type we humans have? Many scientists feel that whatever does happen to emerge from neuroscience, it will need an entirely new word coined to facilitate clear discussion about it, and to avoid associations with the many wrong models of FW.
I somewhat agree with this drive to find a new word to use, but at the same time I don’t want to confuse people who are far removed from neuroscience. The term “free will” happens to be a part of their lives, and has been for centuries.
I feel it will be easier to tell non-scientists that their “free will” definition needs to be MODIFIED, and the parameters fixed a bit.
Much more difficult IMO, would be to try and tell the general population “You people don’t have free will at all. You never did! Now, we scientists have got this technical stuff for you, that you might like hearing about…” and SLAM! goes the door.
But I’m willing to compromise, because the need for a new word is great in the science community. Scientists, too, can have the same flakey set of FW definitions I described above floating around in their heads, even in neuroscience. Not everyone in science is up to the challenge of FW, and many would greatly prefer to work in their specialty where FW doesn’t come up.
My desire is moving towards order in this issue so things can be discussed better. This is a need in our society. The phrase that I’m using for my theory is “Minimalistic Free Will” or “minFW” to distinguish it from all the others. Soon I’ll explain better what is minimal and why. Briefly, though, this is a result of my seeing that a pretty much “maximum” model has been used, traditionally, and things got very messy.
*/*/*
My ultimate concerns in this matter are the:
(1) advancement of neuroscience,
(2) better medical treatments for some mental illnesses, and
(3) clearing the muddy waters regarding personal responsibility.
I see (3) as a raging need in all levels of society, and for people of almost every IQ level, as well as for the justice system and institutions of education.
*/*/*
Now, here are a couple of simple and more common definitions (thanks to a friend) for FW as the idea usually pops up in everyday language:
“The ability to choose between more than on viable option or action, in which that choice was up to the chooser.”
And:
“The ability to have, of one’s own accord, chosen otherwise than they did.”
Some call this Libertarian Free Will; some call it Contra-Causal Free Will.
It’s where the chooser ALONE, and none of the laws of physics or neurobiological synapses interfere or participate. This kind of theoretical FW could involve many such miraculous decisions daily!
This is the kind of FW many scientists aim at, as they demonstrate that FW does not exist, and that it is an illusion, or at best a useful fiction.
*/*/*
I soon will be explaining a minimal model for FW that will be fundamentally different, and might also be called “internal will” or “gradually built will.” This model will be 100% deterministic, as well as Minimalistic.
This model allows the will to grow in its ability to resist some outside influences like OTHER WILLS, but it starts out totally dependent on the nature/nurture programming that it is given. This internal will has the ability to edit or modify itself, but not easily.
The most important thing about ANY kind of FW is that it should help make a person free of other wills and unwanted MACRO influences. The micro activity of a brain’s workings are not the kinds of influences over us that we care about, when we live life and make decisions. The micro machinations of the brain are the LEAST important things to want freedom from.
For the most part, we do NOT experience these micro phenomena one bit at all. They are invisible to us. How are we to make viable decisions regarding micro brain circuitry if we can’t experience that world. We can’t; but we also don’t need it to live life.
I think we are biologically endowed with a system that grows a will in us, and it starts very shortly after birth for human babies. By age 6 many children are able to edit their own internal wills a little bit through memorization. Some humans are sadly not very good at this for various reasons. There is a bell curve on these skills. just like all skills.
I also believe that the simple model for FW that I will be proposing can be designed and installed in crude ways into computer AI programs. If this proposed model is ever verified in the laboratory, it will mean robots could eventually have the same level of FW as humans. This will dramatically affect society, more than we can estimate.
*/*/*
I see one last chance to say this before we begin:
Why talk about FW? It’s because it’s an emergency!
This topic that I’m analyzing, free will, is not a normal one. This topic has been in hot debate for thousands of years, but instead of clearing up over the centuries, it has gotten even more out of hand in recent decades.
For 25 years I’ve been anticipating the days we are living in right now with Artificial Intelligence all around us and growing fast. It’s just a short time away and children will be asking adults if robots have feelings or free will. Adults will not know the answers any better than the kids, though. Sermons will be preached on whether God can hear the prayers of a robot… or not. People will feel cheated if they think they are talking to a human, and it turns out to be a robot. This can even lead to violent situations, if you consider the cognitive dissonance I mentioned earlier.
We are heading for a cultural crunch that will be very confusing to everyone. Even Robots’ Rights may become a real political force at some point. I am personally against this, but it looks like many could want it.
In addition to these unique scientific advancements in machinery, is the strange situation that EVEN SCIENTISTS have pretty much no idea what is really going on in the area of free will, neither in humans, nor in animals, nor in machines.
The top intellectuals of our culture have no firm consensus on whether we even have any such freedom. The best they can offer is that classical FW does not actually exist. They analyze endlessly on whether we should (or should not) assign credit or blame in human behavior, if we are all automatons like robots.
*/*/*
Every human being has a vested interest in learning how to improve their own will power, and possess the ability to sculpt their own consciousness and habits. Everyone struggles with issues of their own self-control, or sometimes worse, with the self-control problems of other people.
So, in addition to my own personal excitement in finding some new clues to this whole gigantic puzzle, I also feel a sense of cultural urgency is attached to it. Understanding better, both artificial intelligence and our own intelligence is quickly becoming a necessity.
*/*/*
It seems academic people are on a hair trigger for discussions on free will; pro or con. It’s a gnawing curiosity in the scientific age. It’s endlessly popping up in discussion and life. Our whole culture is wondering if free will exists or not. Will power (or lack of) is a daily issue with just about everyone.
I think it’s the sudden ubiquitous emergence of robots and A.I. that has everyone backed into an existential corner, asking lots self-referential questions.
Are we just wet robots ???
*/*/*
end of Chapter 1
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That is chapter 1 of my book. It should start off some discussions.
I'll explain more about this book soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
wow - I don't believe it - Mike said PFAL sucks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL
Well, now you know I'm not very religious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My theory can be a little bit rambling, because I am developing the ideas as I write, sometimes. The next effort will be more elegant, hopefully.
The name I gave to the kind of Free Will (FW) that I am proposing is "Minimalistic Free Will" or minFW for short. It is different from what people commonly think about when FW is the topic.
The first thing for you to know is that, at the moment, my research is addressed primarily to laboratory scientists who work with brain cells. I want to inspire them to look for the kind of mechanism I am theoretically proposing.
So, this is NOT addressed to believers, yet, but the results are simple and can be used for getting better results.
Oddly, the Bible seems to have very little to say about FW. It documents decisions a lot, but not about how free each decision was. I did get 3 tips from VPW, though, that I mentioned last week.
These 3 tips are:
1 - FW is not supernatural or spiritual. It is a biological function that even natural men have, and need to believe Romans 10:9
2 – You cannot control the thoughts that hit your mind, but you can control whether or not they can lodge there.
3 – Loss of muscular control is not good. We use our FW to move our muscles, lips, and throat, as we were taught how to SIT.
So, this approach I am taking is to explain things for the simple, animal, biological, brute beast WITHOUT spirit, and how they can make free will decisions.
I am thinking of simple, mundane, boring decisions….and not crucial life decisions.
The way science works is to start with the most simple situation, so this analysis completely omits any spiritual abilities and augmentations we enjoy, having spirit.
It’s starting at the beginning with simple animal decisions.
*/*/*/*
Here is a short summary of where I am going with all this:
Minimalistic Free Will is the ability to self-sculpt one's own will, desires, and activities to match another's will.
This sculpting process is difficult and requires persistent efforts.
This process is really just complicated, self-directed learning.
*/*/*/*
My position is that FW was poorly defined around the 1200s by theologians like Thomas Aquinas, and then secularized by the Enlightenment Philosophers around 400 years ago.
This terrible definition has saturated Western thinking, and complicated it immeasurably.
We humans do NOT have free will, as it has been classically defined.
We can, however, learn and progress in the area of making better decisions.
More explicitly, I believe that we have no Libertarian Free Will. Our biology only supports a weak, delayed form of Minimalistic Free Will, that I am seeing more and more as a complicated configuration of self-directed learning.
This minimalistic FW is sufficient to get the job done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.