Back to the Free Will Conundrum

[Montana]

As far as I can tell, this issue is not solved.

Tom insists that it must exist to make his TOE work, but that is not reasonable proof that it does exist.

From here, it looks like in order to move foreward, we HAVE to believe (in the worst sense of the word) and have faith (in the best sense of the word) in the idea, even though it approaches logical absurdity....

Remember, 'you', in so much as you exist as a human being, do so as a thin film, the interface between your genes and your environment.

Yet to disbelieve in free-will is to select suicide by nihilism.

So, I believe in free-will because I absolutely must... I have no real choice in the matter, ironically enough, save maybe to ignore the issue completely.

-Montana

PS, of course I'd be delighted to be refute here. Have at it!

[k0liver]

a few viewpoints. thoughts.

It is a very convincing intuitive free-will presence, which makes it more of an acceptance than a belief, in my mind.
It is not absolute. we have to obey the given system, our current bias, BS, perceived capabilities, tendencies, preferences etc.
It is, as everything else, an illusion, which implies the paradox of conceptualizing; to pinpoint it would be to dismiss it. But to dismiss it would be absurd because it is inconsistent with the insisting intentionality of the inquiry.

[Montana]

a few viewpoints. thoughts.

It is a very convincing intuitive free-will presence, which makes it more of an acceptance than a belief, in my mind.
It is not absolute. we have to obey the given system, our current bias, BS, perceived capabilities, tendencies, preferences etc.
It is, as everything else, an illusion, which implies the paradox of conceptualizing; to pinpoint it would be to dismiss it. But to dismiss it would be absurd because it is inconsistent with the insisting intentionality of the inquiry.

I like that.

That doesn't, of course, answer the question, but it may well be among the most helpful of possible inputs on the matter.... my understanding is that whenever you get into a self-referencing logical conundrum (of the nature of "If God can do everything, can he make a stone so big that he can't roll it?"), then that it is a positive indication that you are asking the wrong question.


".... to pinpoint it would be to dismiss it." I'm not getting that part yet. I feel like I should be, as though that department of mind isn't awake and operating yet this morning.

" But to dismiss it would be absurd because it is inconsistent with the insisting intentionality of the inquiry." That sounds logical, but still, behind the possible facade of ostensible free-will could be lurking the cold fact that all is predetermined. But then again, if I understand what you said even minimally, your words mean to indicate that what answer does exist does so in an a-logical realm. Errrg... I can almost reach up an touch it, it feels like; alas, the left brain makes a great desk file and mapping tool, but it is surely a rickety step-ladder.

Withal, Kristan, I sense that the flavor of your post is like those flavors of energy that, for lack of better expression, dance and scamper among the stars.

<Hi Fives/> Thanks! </Fives>

-Montana

[k0liver]

/thank you :)

I'll think about a better way to explain the vague ".... to pinpoint it would be to dismiss it."

[Lena]

We do exercise our free will within a limited decision space, and this is why it might seem, that there is no free will at all. Each IOUC has its personal limitations. I think in a beginning one has to become aware of these limitations, accept them, and after that there is a new learning curve and an opportunity to expend a personal decision space.

Lena

[k0liver]

We do exercise our free will within a limited decision space, and this is why it might seem, that there is no free will at all. Each IOUC has its personal limitations. I think in a beginning one has to become aware of these limitations, accept them, and after that there is a new learning curve and an opportunity to expend a personal decision space.

Lena

concur =)

But then again, if I understand what you said even minimally, your words mean to indicate that what answer does exist does so in an a-logical realm. Errrg... I can almost reach up an touch it, it feels like; alas, the left brain makes a great desk file and mapping tool, but it is surely a rickety step-ladder.

Well, exactly! It's intuitively rational, yet rationally ungraspable. I think it is pretty much implied/described in Russel's Paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox Notice Wittgenstein's proposed disposal. And notice the Tom/Russel look-a-like(?) When conceptualizing and formulating/defining, we are restrained to logical sets and finite system, which is determining, and to determine indeterminism is ... requires a-logicality.. "This is not a pipe":

this is not a pipe.jpeg (63.7 KiB) Viewed 4708 times

edit: I don't understand Wittgenstein's proposed disposal, but his phrasing was appealing.

-kristian

[Ted Vollers]

If you wish to take on the question of how can free will exist and arise from a digital consciousness system, you have taken on a major problem. It is very akin to the problem of quantum mechanics in how to make a jump from an information/probability level to a level of discrete particle physicality simulation. Regarding free will, you must make the jump from a reality cell 'sheet' in which interactions take place according to a strict rule set governing the interactions of reality cells and data within them, à la a cellular automaton. I offer you one clue in the PMR designed neural nets which can be self adjusting/programming and can produce more subtle and powerful results than conventional AI programming (see soccer playing robots). Another clue is in the programming of pattern recognition algorithms. As I have been commenting and Tom agrees, iterated pattern matching is basic to consciousness. Good luck in combining these two concepts into a model for the creation of consciousness.

When you get to the VR experiences of IUOCs, it is not so difficult to understand free will. As the IUOCs exist as the minds of the VR FWAUs, they have the ability to interact with the output stream from TBC on a delta t by delta t basis. They can chose many responses to the input data stream as it progresses. Free will readily exists in this interaction. You are not locked into a fixed rule set interaction between reality cells but at a much higher level of existence.

Good luck with your ruminations.

Ted

[bette]

Right, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe.
Love
Bette

[k0liver]

Ted,

very interesting. a little bit difficult to grasp what you're suggesting. But, in short you're suggesting a model of the emergence of consciousness by fusing implications from the designing of self-programming neural nets with implications from the programming of pattern recognition algorithms, and if succeded this would entail 'the jump from the reality cell sheets' and explain free will? Am I correct? Do you think such a model is possible to make, that it's possible to bypass the paradoxes?

Right, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe.
Love
Bette

Right, it's a picture of a pipe with a text saying it's not a pipe.


kristian

[bette]

Right, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe.
Love
Bette

Right, it's a picture of a pipe with a text saying it's not a pipe.

On a computer screen. :)
Love
Bette

[Justin]

We do exercise our free will within a limited decision space, and this is why it might seem, that there is no free will at all. Each IOUC has its personal limitations. I think in a beginning one has to become aware of these limitations, accept them, and after that there is a new learning curve and an opportunity to expend a personal decision space.

Lena

This is how I see it as well.

As far as I can tell, this issue is not solved.

Tom insists that it must exist to make his TOE work, but that is not reasonable proof that it does exist.

From here, it looks like in order to move foreward, we HAVE to believe (in the worst sense of the word) and have faith (in the best sense of the word) in the idea, even though it approaches logical absurdity....

Remember, 'you', in so much as you exist as a human being, do so as a thin film, the interface between your genes and your environment.

Yet to disbelieve in free-will is to select suicide by nihilism.

So, I believe in free-will because I absolutely must... I have no real choice in the matter, ironically enough, save maybe to ignore the issue completely.

-Montana

PS, of course I'd be delighted to be refute here. Have at it!

Montana,

Consider this. It is my take... maybe useful, maybe not. I don't think we have to believe anything. In fact we really can't believe anything if growth is our goal. This stumped me after first reading MBT. Tom says not to "believe", and yet presents this amazingly solid model of reality based on his own experiences. I could not wrap my head around the idea of how to move forward without believing something. To try to be more loving, I must first believe that my existence is related in some way to becoming more loving. To sit down and meditate, I must first believe that it is useful. To try and visit NPMR via a lucid dream, I must first believe that NPMR exists. Tom also mentioned objective results through subjective experience. For the longest time, I just did not understand what that meant. The conclusion and understanding that I came to after working with these ideas is this:

The only thing that I can say with any level of certainty is that I think and that I exist (thank you Descartes). Of course I can only prove this to myself. Pretty much everything outside of this remains uncertain to some degree or another. There is no way around it. We do not have to put something in a category of "I beleive X" or "I do not believe X". Both of these are belief traps. Growth then stops, or is at least greatly slowed. I realize you probably already know this, but I'm just stating it to help clarify what I'm trying to say. The solution is that we can move forward by holding (very lightly) probable truths. So, in the case of free will. I might say that I currently find it most likely that we have free will (in the best capacity that I can define it from this perspective). However, I have to hold this probable truth lightly and fully consider and accept that it may be completely wrong. Things may become more or less probable as our experience increases and as we gain understanding at the being level. Uncertainty will remain though. This is an amazing process and is directly related to letting go of fear. I can say that I hold the probable truth that we are here to grow toward love, evolve, etc. However, I can only say this based on my experiences and current level of understanding. Therefor I must stop and fully consider what it would mean if this probable truth (evolving toward love) is completely wrong. There are plenty of other scary and much more yucky possibilities to consider. I must stop and look these other possibilities in the eye, fully acknowledge them, set them down, and move forward.... setting my probable truths as the beacon to lead my way. By believing something, we avoid this process of having to face these fears. This is probably why belief is so popular with us human folk :P

As I understand the idea of open-minded skepticism, it is not a state that we use to find proof. It is a constant state of being where there is no proof, only probable truths. So we can even assign percentages to our probable truths I suppose if it is helpful. One thing might be 60% true, while another thing might be 90% true. There is always that other percentage though (however small or large) that we must allow to exist. In this way, we remain in a state that allows for the change that is caused by growth. As Robert Bruce said in the recent exchange with Tom, this is to "remain in the question".

A search for proof that free-will exists will lead in circles or to a belief. A search for proof in any regard will end at the same. The difference is that we should find objective results to form probable truths as apposed to seeking objective proof to make something either true of false.

In short, we can move forward base on the probable truths that we have formed through our subjective experiences and from our current level of understanding. We have to hold these probable truths lightly and must fully consider what it would mean if they are wrong. We face those fears and move on. Proof is directly associated with belief. Something is proven so that it can be believed, or dis-proven so that it can be dis-believed. In this way, the open-minded skeptic cannot prove or dis-prove any of these issues. This is the uncertain nature of our existence. All of this of course is based on our own personal and subjective experience.

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way. I used lots of "we must" and "we should". Those could probably be replaced with "I" or "Justin". So take that part lightly. Anyway, I say all of this with a great deal of humility and only because it seems that (from this perspective) it might be useful.

[bette]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHihkRwisbE

3 minutes, adult language (meaning childish). Stolen from edge off facebook.
Love
Bette

[Ted Vollers]

Kristian,

Those are the only entry points that I know of:

I offer you one clue in the PMR designed neural nets which can be self adjusting/programming and can produce more subtle and powerful results than conventional AI programming (see soccer playing robots). Another clue is in the programming of pattern recognition algorithms. As I have been commenting and Tom agrees, iterated pattern matching is basic to consciousness. Good luck in combining these two concepts into a model for the creation of consciousness.

I thought (hoped) that this thread might be heading there. There is a big leap to be explained in Tom's 'bootstraps' reference in the development of consciousness for which he stated that free will was required. I am just pointing out what that means. If I only get back blank looks, then so be it. Been happening all my life.

Ted

[pgtrue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHihkRwisbE

3 minutes, adult language (meaning childish). Stolen from edge off facebook.
Love
Bette

lol, I love this.


peace

[pgtrue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHihkRwisbE

3 minutes, adult language (meaning childish). Stolen from edge off facebook.
Love
Bette

lol, I love this.


peace

"Do you think that is really air that you are breathing?"

"If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain"
~Morphius~