Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Res Ipsa]

Long responses are, in my opinion, nothing to apologize for. The more you describe your reality, the easier it is for me to understand it. I’ll respond fully tomorrow. But what gives me the biggest insight into your thinking is the first sentence of your response. Why can’t you see it any other way?

Thought experiment: define objective reality as what your God would perceive if he existed. Now, assume he stops existing. How does objective reality change?

If objective reality is independent of your existence, why isn’t it independent of God’s?

[Gadianton]

Let's take the most simple statement of the problem by MG 2.0:

The only objective reality is that which exists outside of our own mind. On another thread Gadianton marks me as as being solipsistic. In a certain respect that is true. Solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure.

I think that is true. And we ALL are in the same boat. Except for the caveat for those that may have and/or continue to have access to absolute objective truth... God might now and then give us some glimpse of what objective reality

what MG is saying is there is no such thing as solipsism, rather, absolute knowledge is really difficult but some achieve it. Nobody can know anything for sure, except for those who can -- see the bold. In other words, nobody can know anything except for Mormon prophets or whoever God wants to give absolute knowledge, which for the purpose of this forum amounts to: nobody knows anything but MG because God told him through his testimony.

In the middle of a room is a chair. I can see it, touch it, sit on it, cut pieces off and analyze with a microscope or measure it with chemical tests or whatever. Someone from the stone age will see a different object than I do, not having any idea of its function in modern life. Someone colorblind will see it differently. All of the tests I subject to it result in words and numbers on a screen that are interpreted by my mind. 1) I can only know certain aspects about the chair by my senses or instruments 2) there is no way to say for sure there really is a chair, I could be in the matrix.

This isn't a problem God can fix through "revelation". Maybe God can experience the totality of the chair, but he can't reveal that full understanding to brains not wired to handle the load. Perhaps he can increase our visual range a little, let us see RF, but we never get the full enchilada as God can understand it. Further, Even if God does greatly enhance our senses, we still have no better to reason there really is a chair "out there" in the world, as we could be brains in a vat and God is just enhancing our neurons to give a little better resolution.

[MG 2.0]

Long responses are, in my opinion, nothing to apologize for. The more you describe your reality, the easier it is for me to understand it. I’ll respond fully tomorrow. But what gives me the biggest insight into your thinking is the first sentence of your response. Why can’t you see it any other way?

Thought experiment: define objective reality as what your God would perceive if he existed. Now, assume he stops existing. How does objective reality change?

If objective reality is independent of your existence, why isn’t it independent of God’s?

The answer to the first question is dependent on the answer to the second and third. I don’t see the second question as having a definition that I can determine from where I sit. Why? Because if God does exist I think it would be a safe assumption to think that this God is in and through all things and the creations would on some way be dependent on His existence and power to create and maintain the ‘system’. So taking God out of the picture takes away the prime mover of all things.

That’s a problem. So I don’t see the thought experiment as being one that can be definitively answered in any way that has staying power. You’re pulling God out at the outset. You can only observe what is ‘there’. But you are not able to observe what would or wouldn’t be there if God wasn’t the prime mover. It could be that nothing would be there/here.

Answer to the fist question is from the viewpoint of my thought processes that are limited by my understanding. I make more or less a subjective determination that there is a prime mover.

I’m a fan of the anthropic principle. The universe, at least from where we sit, seems to be fine tuned for life as we know it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Let's take the most simple statement of the problem by MG 2.0:

The only objective reality is that which exists outside of our own mind. On another thread Gadianton marks me as as being solipsistic. In a certain respect that is true. Solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure.

I think that is true. And we ALL are in the same boat. Except for the caveat for those that may have and/or continue to have access to absolute objective truth... God might now and then give us some glimpse of what objective reality

what MG is saying is there is no such thing as solipsism, rather, absolute knowledge is really difficult but some achieve it.

I don’t think that it’s an achievement, per se, as much as a gift. Being that we can’t achieve ultimate objective truth on our own. As I’ve said a number of times now, knowledge would have to come from outside the closed loop of existence we find ourselves in. It’s not readily available to us.

Unless, of course we are able to discern all things. But I don’t think we have the minds or even the tools to do that.

Although we’ve come along ways.

There are some philosophers and secular thinkers that would like to think they’ve almost achieved perfect knowledge leading to the objective truth of all things.

But I’m sure you’re not one of them.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Next sentence, same thing. Makes no sense. To me. Can you explain why this sentence has meaning for you? Maybe some concrete examples?

Regards,
MG

Free will means a will free of restrictions. For example, if my will was completely free, I could will myself to believe I was an elephant. I don't have that freedom right now. I could pretend, but I don't see any way where I can convince myself perfectly that I am actually an elephant. That is one of many limitations on my freedom of will. It helps illustrate that my will is restricted, and not perfectly free, in at least some sense.

We would have to agree on that before continuing my line of reasoning.

I think this post got lost on the last page, bumping it here. Can we agree on this idea, MG? I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

[MG 2.0]

Free will means a will free of restrictions. For example, if my will was completely free, I could will myself to believe I was an elephant. I don't have that freedom right now. I could pretend, but I don't see any way where I can convince myself perfectly that I am actually an elephant. That is one of many limitations on my freedom of will. It helps illustrate that my will is restricted, and not perfectly free, in at least some sense.

We would have to agree on that before continuing my line of reasoning.

I think this post got lost on the last page, bumping it here. Can we agree on this idea, MG? I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

I’m going to answer this with a little help from A.I.:

The concept of free will is a complex philosophical topic, and there are different perspectives and theories on its nature and limitations. However, in the context of your question, it's important to note that free will does not grant us the ability to arbitrarily believe or change our beliefs at will.

Belief formation is influenced by a variety of factors, including our experiences, knowledge, reasoning abilities, and cognitive processes. While we have some degree of control over our beliefs through critical thinking and evaluation of evidence, it is generally not possible to willfully and instantly change our deeply ingrained beliefs, especially about our own identity.

If you were to try to will yourself to believe you were an elephant, it is unlikely that you would genuinely convince yourself of such a belief. Beliefs about personal identity are complex and deeply rooted in our experiences, self-perception, and understanding of the world. They are not easily altered by a simple act of will.

It's important to recognize that belief formation is a complex interplay of conscious and subconscious processes, and while we can have some influence over our beliefs, they are typically shaped by a wide range of factors beyond our immediate control.

So within the realm of ‘beliefs’ it appears as though they are “not easily altered by a simple act of will.”

But as I write this post I am doing so of my own free will disassociated from my beliefs. If I decide to have nachos for dinner rather than a fish dish I am doing so with my free will to choose not dependent on beliefs one way or the other. The number of examples in which free will is exercised disassociated from beliefs is voluminous.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I think this post got lost on the last page, bumping it here. Can we agree on this idea, MG? I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

I’m going to answer this with a little help from A.I.:

The concept of free will is a complex philosophical topic, and there are different perspectives and theories on its nature and limitations. However, in the context of your question, it's important to note that free will does not grant us the ability to arbitrarily believe or change our beliefs at will.

Belief formation is influenced by a variety of factors, including our experiences, knowledge, reasoning abilities, and cognitive processes. While we have some degree of control over our beliefs through critical thinking and evaluation of evidence, it is generally not possible to willfully and instantly change our deeply ingrained beliefs, especially about our own identity.

If you were to try to will yourself to believe you were an elephant, it is unlikely that you would genuinely convince yourself of such a belief. Beliefs about personal identity are complex and deeply rooted in our experiences, self-perception, and understanding of the world. They are not easily altered by a simple act of will.

It's important to recognize that belief formation is a complex interplay of conscious and subconscious processes, and while we can have some influence over our beliefs, they are typically shaped by a wide range of factors beyond our immediate control.

So within the realm of ‘beliefs’ it appears as though they are “not easily altered by a simple act of will.”

But as I write this post I am doing so of my own free will disassociated from my beliefs. If I decide to have nachos for dinner rather than a fish dish I am doing so with my free will to choose not dependent on beliefs one way or the other. The number of examples in which free will is exercised disassociated from beliefs is voluminous.

Regards,
MG

My first point would be that you need to feel what it's like to have your free will limited. I acknowledge you feel that it is completely free in many scenarios, but we have to first discover that it's not limitless. Once you realize that you don't have an infinite amount of control over your thoughts, you can start to pay more close attention to them and begin to discover that the thoughts you think are free now, may similarly be just as bound.

For example, Sam Harris asks you to think of a movie. Which one pops into your head first? Pay attention to how that process works. Movie names come flooding into your thoughts from seemingly out of nowhere, with no act of choice on your part. I initiated those thoughts by asking you the question, and your brain responded with a movie name. But that name was not in your control. You can try to explain why your brain thought about it, but that is not the same as your free will seeing all 10,000 names at once and you choosing one from among them.

The Sam Harris video where he runs you through this experiment is illuminating:

https://youtu.be/u45SP7Xv_oU?si=5dT6k5dDIenOiy60&t=1088

if you pay attention to how thoughts arise, you'll see that they simply appear quite literally out of nowhere and you're not free to choose them before they appear. That would require that you think them. Before you think them. So here's the question, if you can't control your next thought, if you can't decide what it will be before it arises and if you can't prevent it from arising, where is your freedom of will? At this moment, you might be thinking, what the hell is he talking about?

Here is what I'm talking about. You didn't choose that thought either. If you're confused by what I'm saying, you didn't produce your confusion, you didn't decide to be confused. Conversely, if you understand what I'm saying and you find it interesting, you didn't create that state of mind either. And if your mind is just wandering to thoughts of lunch and you missed half of what I just said, you didn't choose to be distracted. Everything is just happening, including your thoughts and intentions and desires and most deliberate actions.

You are part of the universe and there is no place for you to stand outside of its causal structure.

[Physics Guy]

I have only read a bit about the philosophy of free will, but I have thought a lot about physical determinism. Lately I've had an idea that seems to me to put things in a new light; but perhaps it's not as good as I think.

The idea is: Whatever is controlling you is you.

It seems to me to make sense. "Whatever it is that is controlling me" seems to me to be a good definition of "the real me."

This ultimately implies that the real me is a certain tiny subset of the initial conditions of the universe.

Okay.

It's a little abstract, and kind of far removed from the naïve picture of a little homunculus living behind my eyes somehow. Is it really so different from the traditional concept of an immaterial spirit or soul? So far I don't think it is.

[malkie]

I have only read a bit about the philosophy of free will, but I have thought a lot about physical determinism. Lately I've had an idea that seems to me to put things in a new light; but perhaps it's not as good as I think.

The idea is: Whatever is controlling you is you.

It seems to me to make sense. "Whatever it is that is controlling me" seems to me to be a good definition of "the real me."

This ultimately implies that the real me is a certain tiny subset of the initial conditions of the universe.

Okay.

It's a little abstract, and kind of far removed from the naïve picture of a little homunculus living behind my eyes somehow. Is it really so different from the traditional concept of an immaterial spirit or soul? So far I don't think it is.

Please don't tell Kermit about this - OK?

[MG 2.0]

I’m going to answer this with a little help from A.I.:


So within the realm of ‘beliefs’ it appears as though they are “not easily altered by a simple act of will.”

But as I write this post I am doing so of my own free will disassociated from my beliefs. If I decide to have nachos for dinner rather than a fish dish I am doing so with my free will to choose not dependent on beliefs one way or the other. The number of examples in which free will is exercised disassociated from beliefs is voluminous.

Regards,
MG

My first point would be that you need to feel what it's like to have your free will limited. I acknowledge you feel that it is completely free in many scenarios, but we have to first discover that it's not limitless. Once you realize that you don't have an infinite amount of control over your thoughts, you can start to pay more close attention to them and begin to discover that the thoughts you think are free now, may similarly be just as bound.

For example, Sam Harris asks you to think of a movie. Which one pops into your head first? Pay attention to how that process works. Movie names come flooding into your thoughts from seemingly out of nowhere, with no act of choice on your part. I initiated those thoughts by asking you the question, and your brain responded with a movie name. But that name was not in your control. You can try to explain why your brain thought about it, but that is not the same as your free will seeing all 10,000 names at once and you choosing one from among them.

The Sam Harris video where he runs you through this experiment is illuminating:

https://youtu.be/u45SP7Xv_oU?si=5dT6k5dDIenOiy60&t=1088

if you pay attention to how thoughts arise, you'll see that they simply appear quite literally out of nowhere and you're not free to choose them before they appear. That would require that you think them. Before you think them. So here's the question, if you can't control your next thought, if you can't decide what it will be before it arises and if you can't prevent it from arising, where is your freedom of will? At this moment, you might be thinking, what the hell is he talking about?

Here is what I'm talking about. You didn't choose that thought either. If you're confused by what I'm saying, you didn't produce your confusion, you didn't decide to be confused. Conversely, if you understand what I'm saying and you find it interesting, you didn't create that state of mind either. And if your mind is just wandering to thoughts of lunch and you missed half of what I just said, you didn't choose to be distracted. Everything is just happening, including your thoughts and intentions and desires and most deliberate actions.

You are part of the universe and there is no place for you to stand outside of its causal structure.

The movies my pop into my head and I can make a list of them. That’s memory. If I’m asked to name the top five movies from my list as being my favorites, that’s free will. I have an absolute choice. Yes, I have to retrieve the names of the movies first and would have to have seen them. Free will and memory can work in tandem.

I choose to be kind and empathetic towards someone vs. either ignoring them or treating them unkindly. That’s free will. I would imagine that Sam Harris would say that my responses to be kind vs. mean are simply a product of evolution and rewards vs. consequences for certain behaviors. But I don’t believe that to always be the case.

Victor Frankl believed in free will. In fact, it was a fundamental part of his logotherapy theory and his philosophy on life. He believed that humans always have the capacity for free will, regardless of their environment or genetic factors. Frankl maintained that even in the most dire of circumstances, people have the ultimate freedom to choose their attitude and response. He saw this firsthand as a survivor of Nazi concentration camps, where he witnessed both the worst and the best of human nature.

Non religionists seem to have an antipathy towards free will. What’s up with that?

Regards,
MG