Do You Know That You Have NFW? ( ie. 100% GED )

Post Reply New Topic

I think that they were "inaccurately reporting something real". Choices and preferences, however determined, are "real", and it is even possible to measure the brain activity that accompanies them, etc etc etc. Self-awareness has an effect on our behaviour, etc, but it's nature and extent is determined. "Will" exists in so far as we are "agents" which "choose" and act, ( some of the time ), on those choices, but the will is not "free"; it is determined. The experience of "freedom"/free will is purely subjective.

I think that the "inaccurate" report arose in the same way that belief in a flat earth did, from people's subjective experience, when the objective reality is that it is round. The interesting thing is that as far as most activities are concerned it doesn't matter which it is. It doesn't matter unless you try to find/reach the edge, and find yourself back where you started.

I used to believe in free will in the mundane common-sense way that involves experiencing one's own choices, preferences, etc as "mine". Then, 13 years ago, I became involved with a "large group awareness training program", ( the second course that I went on was actually called "Strengthening the Will" ), which taught processes to develop one's self-awareness, among other things.

For years I believed in the precepts it taught, including the possibility of strengthening my "will", and believed that if I "just did the work", as they put it, I would be able to transform/"develop" myself, bit by bit. And there is no doubt that the "noticing"/"mindful"/"self-awareness" tools were/are useful; in fact I believe that the ability to "see clearly" is all that is necessary to create change ... and environment decides how well I see.

But I discovered that not only was there nothing "there" which could appropriately or accurately be called free will, but also that belief in its existence reinforced various kinds of less than desirable behaviours in me; feelings of superiority, including intolerance, arrogance, and impatience at other's "failings", aswell as something which I suspect may be similar to the feeling experienced by certain devout religious people, the impression that there was a sort of "Big Brother"/Orwellian surveillance organisation inside my head.

My experience seems to directly contradict your own, which is why I suggest again that belief in free will is like belief in god, a subjective thing; it has no basis in objective reality. I also suggest that it is an illusion born of belief in another illusion; that of a fixed "personal self", as something "real", distinct from the environment/universe.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2009, 6:44 am, edited 4 times in total.

In so far as a creature's awareness of itself leads it to do X, Y, or Z I would call it a feedback loop, and there are many such, and many complex ones, in all living organisms.


I think that it is disingenuous to suggest that "free will" may just be slightly misnamed. The term/construct is loaded with meaning, has been used to justify all sorts of social structures, including punishment systems, etc. Although I agree with you that the experience of "making choices" etc is "real" subjectively, and that the skills that "we", directed by environment and genes, can develop to notice/be aware of our inner workings/processes , etc, ( including that of making choices ), are important ones, the term "free will" is far from being an innocent misnomer. It implies a great many things, which as I said above, have serious and profound implications for the running of society.


If I am fixated in a black and white way on a word here it is the word "free" or "freedom". As a result of our discussion I am wondering what it actually means, if anything. Perhaps it is going to "disappear/evaporate" for me like the word "lazy" did a few years ago when I completely "saw" that it was "just" a value judgement" often applied to someone, ( incl oneself ), if they don't do what one thinks they "should" be doing. What on earth do I mean when I use the word "free"? Hmm! Thank you for challenging me on this.

.

I would go in the direction I wanted to go in. That's all I want the freedom to do and I get that freedom even if I am fully deterministic.
No one wants to go to Aus' in the direction they don't want to go in.


You really shouldn't mulit-post like that. it's what paragraphs and headings are for.

PS. Why shouldn't I multi-post like that by the way?

.

Pandd, I was thinking that maybe the closest I get to understanding what you mean by "free will" is "mindfulness", ( but my "mindfulness" being determined by genes and environment etc I just wouldn't call it "free" ).

Only after I had said:

Skills do not necessarily require any micro-tubules that provide some kind of communicatory portal to a remote entity that is our consciousness. They do not necessarily require an observer.

I cannot find any objective proof anywhere in your arguments, so I am not sure why you expect I would be attempting to generate such myself, or that it is somehow encumbant on me to do so.
I note that you have not provided any substantial argument against the existence of what I am describing as being free will, but instead simply return again and again to the point that the word "free" appears in the phrase "free will" and that "free" to you means without limitation or constraint, (which would necessarily require some kind of supernatural magical quality and therefore certainly cannot be the mundane skill that I am describing). You state that you think that this is what is meant by free will by most other people and that what I am describing is not what is meant, but I note that my interpretation of free will is quite consistent with a number of the definitions you personally posted, and that you have no answer for my question as to whether the majority of people who believe in free will have never heard of either nature or nuture.
This is quite incorrect. It is not merely my personal interpretation that I am characterized by self awareness and this is not something you have disputed. It is not merely my personal interpretation that I respond to my own sense of self awareness in ways that effect my behavior and my ongoing sense of self awareness, and you have not disputed this. It is not merely my interpretation that such things as skills exist and I see nothing particularly personal about the interpretation of the capacity to observe productively as being a skill, nor the capacity to make productive choices as being a skill and I note an absence of any challenge to these facts on your part. The only real issue of dispute to me appears to be whether or not the skill I describe is what the referent of the phrase "free will". I point out that a number of the definitions you provided for free will are quite consistent with my interpretation of the phrase, so clearly it's not merely my personal interpretation that it is consistent.

I point out that you seem unable to produce a compelling argument demonstrating that the referrent of "free will" is in fact anything other than the mundane skill/skill set that I have interpreted it as being. I again refer you to the similarity between such a skill/skill-set and what is described as "free will" and the extent to which the effect of the skill/skill set matches the descriptions as to what free will is, or does or feels like to those who (are alleged) to possess. It seems beyond plausibility that those pondering free will have all imagined something substantially similar to this skill set that does indeed exist, but never actually noticed the skill set or its effects and were referring to some entirely different yet materially similar and utterly imagined thing. A compelling argument to this effect would be necessary to alter my opinion in that regard.


It is frustrating when our efforts are wiped out by technical difficulties.
For long posts, I often type to a word document and then cut and paste; this might not have helped in the advent of needing to reboot, but often Word will recover a document that was open when you do a reboot so your efforts might have been saved.

It is mysterious to me that you view there is a point of contention then. We both agree that the referent of "free will" is real, we both agree it is not some supernatural capacity and as such is not unconstrained or unlimited. I am also mystified as to why you claim it does not exist (rather than claiming it is poorly named and that many assumptions and beliefs about it are mistaken).

As to whether it is accurate or appropriate to call something "free will", as a matter of fact you could call it "mouth wash" and the essence of the referent remains unchanged. Language is arbitrary; it is not inaccurate or inappropriate to use a particular set of sounds to refer to a particular referent so long as the convention is understood. The sound set used to refer to a referent is like the cover of a book. While sometimes the cover of a book might convey something about its content, it is not always the case and to really know what is in a book, one needs to peruse its contents. To state free will does not exist because even though you accept that there is a very real referrent being referred to, you find the name is a poor descripter, makes as much sense as deciding because there is no picture on the front of a book, the content must be blank page after blank page.

Such a reaction is not about the concept of free will but about your reactions and choices in respect of it. Certainly my belief in free will does not cause such a reaction for me; on the contrary it has an almost opposite effect as I am aware that peoples' capacity for free will is not entirely within the scope of their control, and the less skilled they are in the domain of free will, the less scope they have to effectively self intervene to improve their own free will skills. None of this indicates to me that I should consider myself superior to any other person, and indicates rather that I ought to have patience and tolerance with myself and with others, and further that I myself can be an influencing factor in the development or atrophy of free will both in myself and others.

I have difficulty of conceiving of myself as Orwellian, and see my self-surveliance more in line with getting to better know and bond with someone whose company I happen to like.

Then you would be contradicting yourself as you have already conceded that the referent of free will is indeed real, but that (just like me) you perceive that anyone who views the referent as supernatural or unconstrained by the material universe, is simply mistaken about the nature of the referent.

It also makes little sense in my view to refer to a belief as a subjective thing with no objective reality. While the contents of some beliefs are subjective, the reality of the belief as an objective phenomenon cannot be anything but real according to your own contentions. Either there are no beliefs or beliefs are an objectively real effect of environmental causes, including beliefs whose content is subjective, and beliefs that happen to be wrong.

None of which is contrary to the real existence of a referent that people describe using the phrase free will, nor to the referent being a mundane skill or skill set.
I think it is disingenuous to claim something does not exist because it is poorly named. The best way to address problems of miconception about an extant thing is not to claim it does not exist, but rather to refer to it, describe the misconceptions, and explain why these are wrong. That would seem most efficiently achieved by utilizing the current word or phrase that is widely recognized as a conventional means of referring to the referent. It is simply easier to discuss things if they have a name that people recognize refers to the referrent to be discussed.

This would be my conclusion to.

The majority of people who use the term "free will" may have heard of the nature vs nurture debate but think that "nurture" allows for "freedom", and also do not know the extent to which science has shown our brains and behaviour to be determined.

And the main reason why I know that most people do not think free will means the "mundane skill" that you have described is because most people do not say "That person has a lot of free will", and that another has "very little free will", etc. Most people say "Humans have free will", or "Humans do not have free will".

Most people believe that free will is either something that humans have or don't have. It is an either or sort of thing. Whether or not this is simple-minded of them, black and white thinking on their part, the fact remains that most people are not in fact talking about the same thing as you.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Dec 2009, 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

And this issue is not just semantics.

I do not think that what you are referring to is free will ( as most people understand it ); it is self-awareness, mindfulness skills, etc. It is your interpretation that these things are free will. And I disagree with your interpretation. As I pointed out above, if this is what people meant by free will they would not describe humans as simply "having it" or "not having it"; they would measure it like they do IQ, and other abilities/skills.

Also, if a flat-earther were to say that the earth was flat I would not simply accept it because the earth that they are referring to does in fact exist. I would accept that as far as daily activities go their subjective experience, and interpretation, might be valid, and sufficient, but this would not mean that a flat earth existed. A round one does, and it is just their opinion that it is flat.

.

First, a personal note. I hate the title of this thread; it reminds me of the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" line where there is no answer that provides an adequate rebuttal.

I know I have free will, at least by my definition of it; I also know that I am not omnipotent. My will is the ability to discern between options, determine which is in my best interest, and the ability to choose -not- to pursue that path. Even after all the precursors that set the stage for every moment in life, they do not determine my options - at best, they shape them and define them through exclusion.


M.

Can you explain to me how anyone could believe that nuture is somehow allowing for the kind of "freedom" you have been referring to? I frankly cannot make sense of this assertion.

What I can say is every adult I am familiar with knows that how a child is treated by those who meet its needs (or who do not meet its needs but ought to) plays a significant role in shaping the formation of personality and self, as well as a range of skills that are directly related to "decision making" and other such behaviors that are persistently linked with "free will". I do not think that I have ever encountered anyone who believed that children were choosing either their nuturers or the behavior of their nuturers, nor that the behavior of their nuturers does not influence who children are and who they become, how they make choices, and other kinds of behaviors persistently associated with "free will". Neither can I see how anyone who is not barmy could arrive at the notion that "nuture" somehow made one entirely omnipotent, without any constraint or limitation, or "uncaused" and entirely independent of all environmental influences, causes and limitations, or any of the other attributes that you have linked to "free will".

Are you serious?

Firstly, to recap, that people are referring to what I am referring to does not require that we agree on the qualities of the thing referred to. If I call my couch a greenish blue, and my friend calls it very obviously blue and not at all green, this does not mean we are talking about different objects, but rather that we lack consensus regarding a trait or characteristic of the common object we are both referring to. I have already stated that I believe many people are mistaken about the qualities and traits of the thing referred to as free will.

In the second instance, you have agreed that these people are referring to a real thing that many hold and report inaccurate beliefs about. What is this real thing that you concede these people are referring to that is not the skill or skill set I am referring to?

As to the notion that if most people do not say "that person has a lot of X' then X is not a skill, well I suggest running is a skill, and that most people do not describe those who are proficient in this skill as having a lot of running. I would find it odd if someone told me Carol has a lot of singing, or Jamie has a lot of cooking, or Kelly has a lot of multiplication, but I do find it quite ordinary and decidedly not odd to describe and classify singing, cooking, and multiplication as skills.

Most significantly, if what people are referring to as free will, is indeed what I am referring to as free will, but they wrongly think it is something other than a skill, then this would explain why they would not structure language around the concept/phrase as though they were referring to a skill, yet it would still be true that they and I were referring to a common referrent. So the fact that people do not construct language around the phrase that is consistent with the language they might use if they recognized the common referrent they and I am referring to as a skill, does not prove or even indicate that they and I are referring to different things. The exact same outcome can occur if they and I am referring to a common referent whose nature and qualities we happen to not be in agreement about.

No such fact has been established.

I refer you again to the material similarities between the (as you now concede) real but at least sometimes and perhaps often inaccurately observed/reported thing referred to as free will, and the characteristics and traits of the thing I am referring to. If they are referring to a real thing but are somewhat mistaken about some of its qualities/characteristics, and are not referring to what I am referring to, then can you explain what is the real thing that these people have inaccurate beliefs about, and also once these inaccuracies are removed, if sound logic is followed, in precisely what respect would a 'correct and accurate" representation of this real thing be contrary to what I am describing?

Is the real thing that these people refer to but which at least some appear to hold inaccurate or mistaken beliefs about something that (in your view) humans either have or do not have absolutely?

The fact is, unless you strip away the inaccurate beliefs that some people are applying to this "real thing", tidy up the logic, and still find that what one is left with is necessarily contrary to what I have been describing free will as being, you have not demonstrated that different things are being referred to, nor even demonstrated that it is likely that different things are being referred to. All you have shown is that if they and I actually are referring to the same thing, we do not consistently share the same beliefs and understandings about the nature and quality of the common thing referred to.


To recap, you and I both agree that those referring to free will are referring to something real, but that they do not all necessarily have an accurate understanding of the real thing they are referring to. It necessarily follows that I am not referring to the same thing, as those (mistaken) people "understand" it, since they in fact do not appear to understand it, but rather are experiencing (in both your and my view) some degree of misunderstanding about it. I have never claimed to be referring to or describing free will as those who hold erroneous beliefs about free will understand it, but rather to be referring to the same thing as I understand it. In other words, while people who refer to free will (both those who believe it exists and those who do not) are referring to precisely the same thing I am referring to, not all of them have an accurate, working or particularly lucid understanding of the thing we are commonly referring to, and so their understanding of this thing will necessarily be different in some way to an accurate, working and lucid understanding of the same thing. I happen to think that my understanding of free will is not inaccurate, is functional, and is lucid.

No I do not expect so, but nor would I expect you to respond with similar (il)logic as it appears (to me) that you are employing in respect of free will.

A more accurate rendering of that analogy would entail recalling that you have agreed that when people are referring to free will they are inaccurately reporting a real thing, much like when flat earthers state the earth is flat, they are making erroneous assertions about a real thing. I find it difficult to believe you would respond to a flat earther's statement by first determining that what they are saying cannot be true, and then despite knowing that they are referring to a real thing but making untrue claims about it, would choose to assert that there is no earth. Nor can I readily imagine that when someone tries to point out the very real earth (that the flat earther was indeed referring to when they made their inaccurate claim), you would respond by arguing that this is not the earth because it is not flat, and if the earth is not flat it does not exist, because a mistaken flat earther inaccurately described it as being flat.

In reality the flat earther is referring to the very real planet earth, but they are making and apparently believe some very inaccurate things about that real earth. This does not cause the earth to split into a flat earth and a non flat earth, the non flat earth does not cease to exist and the earth that the flat earther asserted was flat, remains the real earth that happens to be misunderstood and inaccurately described by the flat earther as being flat, when in fact it is non-flat.

Pandd, you wouldn't, ( would you? ), agree with the flat-earther that the earth was flat? You would, ( wouldn't you? ), insist that the earth was round?

I am insisting that our self-awareness, agency, will, skills, abilities to act on ourselves etc, ( which we agree all exist ), are not free, but determined, ( however "free" they feel/seem subjectively ).

And I think that the difference between the meanings of "flat" and "round" is not even quite as big as the one between "free" and "determined".

.

What argument can you offer that they are determined? At best, I can only see an argument that external existence imposes a palette on the individual - I do not see where one is told to paint, what to create, which colours to use, what path to follow. It appears that you relate omnipotence with free will; why would one have to be all powerful in order to have a determinant role in their own existence? I don't think anyone is arguing that life is free of influence, but I have read nothing to suggest or support your position that there is no free will, or that individuals are 'genetically and environmentally determined' in any way... again, one can't control everything, but once the Pandora's Box of life is sprung, it is up to the opener to find their own way. There are no rewards or punishments in life; only consequences, both direct and indirect.


M.

Have you had the experience of deciding to do something that you think you want to do very much, and then not doing it?

If you have, did you try to work out why you didn't do it? What reasons did you find?

.

There are many things that I have wanted to do, that I have not. Some were the consequence of earlier actions or decisions, some were the consequence of circumstance - and some I choose not to pursue for a variety of reasons including having something else I wanted to do. A prime example would be a situation I found myself where I had two opportunities to be a part of musical organization at the same time, but could not do both. I made a decision; I'm happy with it... and I often wonder what it would have been like if I'd chosen the other path. But the choice was mine to make. I could have opted to do neither, as well... there are generally more than two in my experience.


M.

But when it was something that you were sure that you wanted to do, and then somehow or other you just didn't do it, didn't get round to it, failed to do it, didn't manage it, ... not because of obvious environmental circumstances, not because you consciously changed your mind, but because somehow despite your apparent desire to do it, despite the circumstances being apparently favourable ... you didn't do it.

Examples; wanting to give up smoking, or to write an essay when you first receive the assignment, ( because it's less stressful to do it earlier ), going on a diet, exercising every day, etc. You "want" to, but you don't.

Have you ever experienced that and wondered how it happened, why you didn't do the thing you thought that you wanted to do? What reasons did you find for your "failure of will"?

.

When I wanted to quit smoking, and didn't, it was because I went with impulse over conviction - it remained a choice. I didn't have to light that cigarette. If I don't exercise, it is because I chose to be online or watch a film instead, or another distraction. And I've never 'wanted' to write a paper right away, despite any sort of logic involved. That actually made me laugh. But no, I find no external force at work in my life, only a series of choices and consequences.


M.