Dr H video: "You don't have free will, but don't worry"

[metastable]

Suppose I'm dreaming, and in my dream I play a game. After numerous rounds of this game I notice during the dream statistically when I make a certain choice a rewarding outcome is likely. As a result of my dreams, my tendency to make this choice is reinforced. I encounter a similar situation while awake and make a choice based on what I remember from my dreams. Was the choice random, deterministic or free will?

[AntennaGuy]

Your choice was as all other events in the universe, a consequence of the laws of the universe, at least some of which we do not (yet) fully understand.

[chasmanian]

but I also believe it is possible that I can break out of the conditioning, should I desire.

it is my choice.

I have free will to choose.

But who is the "I" that breaks out of the conditioning? Do you perceive that "I" as separate from the conditioned self you acknowledge yourself to be?

Or is it the same "I" , the same self, also conditioned, but at a deeper, more subtle level?

Or is there no "I" at all, no essential, permanent "self?"

The answer to my questions is, I think, "Turtles" (All the way down).

I like your Turtles theory.

I think the "I" is a wiser me, a me which is free from my conditioning.

and want to say that I find this thread fascinating, and appreciate everyone's comments.

further, I wonder if Dr. H has ever seen this film, and if it would have any predictable effect on her viewpoint.
(I, of my own free will, predict that she does believe in Free Willy):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Willy

[notFritzArgelander]

but I also believe it is possible that I can break out of the conditioning, should I desire.

it is my choice.

I have free will to choose.

But who is the "I" that breaks out of the conditioning? Do you perceive that "I" as separate from the conditioned self you acknowledge yourself to be?

Or is it the same "I" , the same self, also conditioned, but at a deeper, more subtle level?

Or is there no "I" at all, no essential, permanent "self?"

The answer to my questions is, I think, "Turtles" (All the way down).

I like your Turtles theory.

I think the "I" is a wiser me, a me which is free from my conditioning.

and want to say that I find this thread fascinating, and appreciate everyone's comments.

further, I wonder if Dr. H has ever seen this film, and if it would have any predictable effect on her viewpoint.
(I, of my own free will, predict that she does believe in Free Willy):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Willy

She may well believe in freeing Willy but I doubt she would see your choice as an exercise of free will.

[Voyageur]

but I also believe it is possible that I can break out of the conditioning, should I desire.

it is my choice.

I have free will to choose.

But who is the "I" that breaks out of the conditioning? Do you perceive that "I" as separate from the conditioned self you acknowledge yourself to be?

Or is it the same "I" , the same self, also conditioned, but at a deeper, more subtle level?

Or is there no "I" at all, no essential, permanent "self?"

The answer to my questions is, I think, "Turtles" (All the way down).

I like your Turtles theory.

I think the "I" is a wiser me, a me which is free from my conditioning.

and want to say that I find this thread fascinating, and appreciate everyone's comments.

further, I wonder if Dr. H has ever seen this film, and if it would have any predictable effect on her viewpoint.
(I, of my own free will, predict that she does believe in Free Willy):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Willy

I can't take credit for "turtles," but the story has served me well on occasion. There may be elephants involved as well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

I don't believe in Free Will, but I see evidence, anecdotal to be sure, for an evolving consciousness in individuals and the possibility of wiser, freer choices within the greater mechanisms of the universe, of which we understand only a fragment.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that an isolated system spontaneously evolves toward a state of maximum entropy at thermodynamic equilibrium, but if energy is introduced into the system, this process can be halted. (Not sure if it's correct to say reversed. I'm not a physicist.) Likewise, can some form of energy enter our consciousness and change our ability to make choices, giving us "micro" free will within an ultimately non-free system?

I love anyone who puts effort into a greater understanding of the universe, but I also love when that person leaves room for the unknown and perhaps unknowable.

The scientist J.B.H. Haldane said, "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Jack Handey (Deep Thoughts) said, "What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to try to save a solid-gold baby? Maybe we`ll never know."

[chasmanian]

very good Voyageur.

“To be is to do”—Socrates.

“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre.

“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.

[notFritzArgelander]

Here is a relevant quote by way of recent bedtime reading (Babylon's Ashes, The Expanse 6) but originally from Tolstoy War and Peace:

As with astronomy the difficulty of recognizing the motion of the earth lay in abandoning the immediate sensation of the earth’s fixity and of the motion of the planets, so in history the difficulty of recognizing the subjection of personality to the laws of space, time, and cause lies in renouncing the direct feeling of the independence of one’s own personality. But as in astronomy the new view said: “It is true that we do not feel the movement of the earth, but by admitting its immobility we arrive at absurdity, while by admitting its motion (which we do not feel) we arrive at laws,” so also in history the new view says: “It is true that we are not conscious of our dependence, but by admitting our free will we arrive at absurdity, while by admitting our dependence on the external world, on time, and on cause, we arrive at laws.” In the first case it was necessary to renounce the consciousness of an unreal immobility in space and to recognize a motion we did not feel; in the present case it is similarly necessary to renounce a freedom that does not exist, and to recognize a dependence of which we are not conscious.

Corey, James S. A.. Babylon's Ashes (The Expanse) . Orbit. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps the problem, as always, our bewitchment by our language. The determinism of physical laws and experience of free will are ONLY mutually exclusive if one takes Aristotle's principle of non contradiction to an absolute extreme. The law is improperly applied to propositions in different axiomatic domains.

For example. In geometry there are the Euclidean and non Euclidean axiomatic systems with different postulates about parallel lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry It is improper to assert that plane, elliptic and hyperbolic geometry cannot live together happily within mathematics. Asserting that only one parallel line is possible and denigrating the other two geometries is illegitimate.

Dr H similarly errs in insisting that there is a contradiction between the determinism of physical laws and the freedom we experience in choice. There is simply no contradiction because the axiomatic domains (and data!) are disjoint. Thus I would argue that her argument is flawed because it doesn't respect the domain and context. It is a common logical error when one assumes one domain is "fundamental" and tries to export it to domains to which it doesn't apply.

Favorite quote again:

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language." – L. Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations)

Dr H is bewitched by a fundamentalist attitude to physics.

[chasmanian]

nFA,

very good.
would you say Dr. H is making a category error?
or not really quite exactly?

also, are you saying that you do believe we have free will?

I can tell you that it takes a very conscious deliberate intent and action,
for me to break out of my habitual conditioned thinking, and behavior.
sometimes I do much better than at other times.

also, your excellent favorite quote, makes me think of the word semantics.

[notFritzArgelander]

nFA,

very good.
would you say Dr. H is making a category error?
or not really quite exactly?

Yes. A category error on steroids even.

also, are you saying that you do believe we have free will?

I can tell you that it takes a very conscious deliberate intent and action,
for me to break out of my habitual conditioned thinking, and behavior.
sometimes I do much better than at other times.

I have experiences that look like they could be described as free will. I also believe that much and many of folks experiences of free will is an illusion. Capacities for introspection differ. More to the point, I believe to a relative certainty that Dr H's argument AGAINST free will is simply wrong.

also, your excellent favorite quote, makes me think of the word semantics.

In part yes. But semantics is just a part of grammar which includes syntax and semantics. I think Wittgenstein thought of himself as more of a generalist, more of a grammarian. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/witt ... amFormLife

[chasmanian]

thank you nFA.
I super appreciate your excellent reply.

I believe that everyone has free will to
choose between
believing we have free will or that we do not.

[notFritzArgelander]

thank you nFA.
I super appreciate your excellent reply.

I believe that everyone has free will to
choose between
believing we have free will or that we do not.

But only because the data is consistent (as far as it goes) with both alternatives as long as one doesn't make category mistakes.

[chasmanian]

very good. thank you very much nFA!!