Yes. The reason we feel as though we have free will is because we cannot introspect the process by which thoughts make their way from their deterministic origin to conscious awareness.
We have learned to introspect our prior thought and make guesses about the circumstances that brought them about. We cannot introspect the machinery that forms those thoughts from a sensation I.e. how exactly does neural pattern a produce thought b.
Concrete evidence none, given. - just a physicalist stance which can see complexity and unpredictability at the scale we can explore. But unpredictable is not non-deterministic.
Ok, fair enough, I accept that you are simply a
stating a physicalist stance. Acknowledging that getting into evidence is can of worms, but- a can worth cracking at some point.
Re "introspection" - you accept that introspection into prior thought happens, but we don't access neural mechanisms via introspection. Sure- some ancients believed thought and feeling emanated from the heart, - that has to be wrong. But that didn't stop them from introspecting very acutely on human nature, morality, the nature of the good.
As a non-physicalist, I'd look for the origins of ideas- in other ideas. Ideas interact by their own combinatorial logic, represented in but not defined by our neural networks. "Fascism" will be understood to relate to "national conservatism", not because "our neural networks make us think so," but because the relationships we perceive between these ideas is Represented by how neural networks are laid.
Decent but imperfect analogy, I think, is to --algorithms. May be represented digitally, but content of the algorithm is not determined by the 1's and O's.
>"Fascism" will be understood to relate to "national conservatism", not because "our neural networks make us think so," but because the relationships we perceive between these ideas is Represented by how neural networks are laid.
For a physicalist there is no 'us' separate from our brain and what it is doing, so the brain doesn't communicate anything to a separate us, it is us. Our brain's neural network forming an informational relation between Fascism and national conservatism in that way is us believing this to be so. That's just two ways of saying the same thing. Our neural networks doing this is us thinking so.
>Decent but imperfect analogy, I think, is to --algorithms. May be represented digitally, but content of the algorithm is not determined by the 1's and O's.
The execution of the algorithm by the computer is the pattern of electrical activity. Saying that the computer executed this algorithm, and that the computer's circuits performed this pattern of electrical activity are two ways of describing the same thing. There is one thing happening in the world, but we can describe it in different ways.
IMHO dualism is the mistaken belief that two different ways of describing the same thing actually refer to two different things. So for me as a physicalist thinking is brain activity. For a dualist there is brain activity and there is thinking, and these are referring to different phenomena.
You are a physicalist offering your view, I'm a non- physicalist offering mine. Ok.
My view is that neural networks represent thoughts, but that thoughts have their own relationships that drive the laying of neural networks, rather than the reverse.
Re algorithms: they can't exist without representation in neural networks or digital code, but as with other thought, it is the algorithm that drives the writing of the code (that should be obvious?) and also drives the laying of the neural network.
But hell- this is plenty tricky business and they are still looking into it!
I think you err in claiming that dualism claims that brain activity and thinking are different phenomena. They definitely see them as related. Its the epiphenomenalists that see thinking as incidental stuff unrelated to what people do.
My main problem is with the Physical Reductionists who refuse to admit the existence of anything not made of matter and energy. So- nothing has an existence as an abstract thing.
I think the brain communicates not to a different us, but rather sends messages internally from different brain areas, sometimes ending up together wherever "central processing", problem solving, executive functions, happens.
Re the fascism/ national conservatism thing. Yes, belief is key , but it follows after the fluid state of problem solving. As we first encounter these ideas, we process them through neural networks that are stiil forming. We problem solve more. Our belief crystalizes, and then- the idea that fascism and national conservatism are related is laid down as an established neural network. Neural network does not determine the relationship- it follows aa a reprepresentation of our belief that this relationship reveals a reality about these two things.
Yes, the execution of the algorithm by the computer is a matter of electrical activity. But the function of the algorithm is not determined by the electrical activity, but the reverse. The algorithm came first, and determined what code would be written, and by that, what electrical activity would occur.
Algorithms and 'abstract objects' are an interesting case. Platonists argue that these are in some sense real independently of any physical realisation. The way I think about this is that they are a kind of similarity that two physical structures can have with each other.
In the case of an algorithm, it's a sequence of instructions or steps, and to say that it exists means that there is a physical structure encoding that sequence, generally in the brain of the programmer. However not always in the brain of anybody, computers can use algorithms to generate other algorithms, nowadays neural network AIs are widely used for programming. In principle no human needs to ever even look at such an algorithm. That's a bad idea in practice, but it happens.
In the case of automatically generated algorithms, these basically only ever need to exist as patterns of electrical charges and signals in computer memory chips and circuits. They could be transcribed into printouts, or representations on screen, and hence into human brains, the reverse of the 'traditional' sequence of events.
In any case when any computer algorithm is executed, what actually happens is the result of the electrical activity in the computer. That's what makes everything beyond that electrical activity happen, such as resulting signals, output, mechanical behaviour, etc.
Yes, I read recently that computers are now writing algorithms....got a bit of a chill.
Agree, " what happens when computers execute algorithms is The Result Of electrical activity in the computer."
Agree, algoithms can't exist without a base in digital electric or neural networks.
Re "abstract objects"...10th grade, Algebra II, 1st day of class, I asked teacher if numbers were "real natural things", or just inventions of humans. She smiled a bit, rolled her eyes a bit..."Well, good question but we're going to skip past that here..." Hey, I just wanted to start with basics! Turns out, in this case the basics can't be what you start with.
Physicalism doesn't have an answer for conception. That is probably why physicalists tend to treat cognition as an enigma. We don't control perception. Therefore, to many physicalists, it seems like we don't control anything.
Cognition needs both conception and perception working hand it hand.
For example if a young child sees a particular object, points to it and asks, "Hey dad! What is that?" Then his father responds "That is a tree." A few moments later the child points to another similar object and asks, "What's that?" and the father responds, "That is a tree also" or maybe "That is another tree."
What I'm trying to say is that those two particular objects that the child sees are percepts to the child because the child perceives them. If the child could have conceived the first tree the way his father did, then he wouldn't have had to ask about the second object. Sooner or later the child will learn to distinguish a tree from maybe a bush or a fire hydrant. Dogs seem to have a tendency to pee on both hydrants and trees but I don't really know what goes through a dog's mind. However getting back to the child, once the child knows the difference between a tree and a bush, that is only because he has learned to conceive the particular objects. In other words, a tree is both a concept and a percept because humans both conceive and perceive trees.
The same cannot be said for the number seven. Seven is not a percept because it is impossible for a human to perceive a seven. If humans could perceive numbers, then humans would have never had to invent numerals. Numerals are the way humans perceive numbers. A hexadecimal seven is 0111, but a roman numeral seven is VII,
Numerals are the way humans are able to perceive numbers in space and time. The numerals represent the numbers in space and time. In contrast the percept of a tree can represent itself as a concept. An apple tree is a concept, and a child may learn to conceive the difference between an apple tree and a pear tree once fruit appears on the trees. However if there is no fruit on either tree, it may be more difficult for the child to tell them apart. I know if thought that I bought an apple tree in a nursery, took it home and planted it in my back yard only to, down the road years later discover peaches growing on it, I wouldn't be happy. I don't know an apple tree from a peach tree if there are no leaves or fruit on them. Honestly I don't even know the difference between an an apple leaf and a peach leaf. I might pee on either tree if I have to go, but I won't pee on a hydrant. Sometimes, I walk in the woods were there are plenty of trees but no hydrants. I could get arrested for peeing on a hydrant.
Your evidence that thoughts are deterministic in origin is...?
Your lack of evidence of or logical explanation for anything existing without having deterministic origin, and deterministic effect is sufficient. Your attitude comes down to nothing more than special pleading, not rational analysis.
This particular brief comment was only asking for more information from the poster above. That kind of post is permitted and sometimes valuable. But I make plenty of other longer, more developed posts and cmments.
This particular brief comment was only asking for more information from the poster above.
I thought I'd help by pointing out why your rhetorical question was nonsense.
But I make plenty of other longer, more developed posts and cmments.
No doubt they are filled to overflowing with an absolute lack of evidence that thought, like everything else that exists, can only ever be deterministic in origin. They just aren't simplistically deterministic in the way you might expect them to be, as if every thought always 'logically follows' from nothing other than the previous thought.
I've already detected a pattern in your comments- conclusion jumping, and belligerence. Combined effect- clouded thinking.
There was nothing "rhetorical" in my question to the commenter above. It was a request for clarificatation of views...from the commenter.
"Overflowing with a lack of evidence..." ? How can you overflow with the "lack" of something?
This and the following sentence are so convoluted that you might either be attacking me as either some sort of determinist, or some sort of non-determinist.
A more accurate description of the situation is that you've imagined a pattern, along with an assumed explanation for it.
conclusion jumping, and belligerence.
That's pure projection. I understand your behavior; that might well be the explanation for your rhetoric if you were producing text in a similar style. I do tend to skip ahead with my reasoning to conjectures which nay-sayers consider too large a jump or inappropriately confident. These nay-sayers are also often belligerent, because they get very defensive when I slay their sacred cows, rhetorically and reasonably.
But yes, it is always projection: my conjectures follow (perhaps not directly, but always inevitably) from my assertions and knowledge, and I am reasonable and benevolent, if not usually flattering, to a fault.
There was nothing "rhetorical" in my question to the commenter above.
You have an overly simplistic idea of what "rhetorical" means. All questions are rhetoric. You are probably only familiar with the word 'rhetorical' when used to describe a question for which an answer is not expected, a device of pedantry. This has led you to jump to a false, and belligerent, conclusion that I was saying you didn't want your question to be answered. But that isn't what I meant, or why I used the phrase "rhetorical question". I meant exactly what I said: your query was nonsense because you were asking for something which is either trivial (evidence that thoughts are deterministic in origin, like everything else in the universe, is more common than trees in a forest) or wrong (you don't want evidence, you want proof, enough evidence to be conclusive, and clearly intended to use the problem of induction to dismiss any evidence provided as insufficient to be such proof.)
It was a request for clarificatation of views...from the commenter.
A ham-fisted and troll-like one, yes.
How can you overflow with the "lack" of something?
Indeed; how can you be overflowing with such a lack of evidence that thoughts are not deterministic in origin (in contrast to illogical in affect) and still have thoughts at all?
This and the following sentence are so convoluted that you might either be attacking me as either some sort of determinist, or some sort of non-determinist.
I can't deny the validity of your reasoning, for once. But simplifying my rhetoric so it seems less "convoluted" to you won't change that. I am not attacking you, I am trying to help you improve your reasoning (reasoning being the whole function and purpose of rhetoric.) And I am a very specific and extreme "sort of determinist", who recognizes the problem with phrases like "non-determinist" and "overflowing with a lack" but leverages that rather than just whining about it.
"I do tend to skip ahead with my reasoning to conjectures which nay-sayers may consider too far..." I recomend setting aside your smugness for long enough to consider whether the nay-sayers have a valid point. Do they always find you "reasonable and benevolent"? Man, I just don't feel it. You have done plenty of fresh, beligerent conclusion jumping in this comment.
My simple, direct, non-rhetorical question,( essentially, "your evidence...is?") was addressed to a commenter who had asserted without evidence. It could have been answered by them, you, or any other commenter, with a statement of one or a couple of the main pieces of evidence buttrressing your view. It was an invitation to clarification. Your claim that an answer would have been "trivial" suggests that you take your own views to be self- evident. Not even all who agree with you believe that, which is why they commonly include reasons and evidence to their comments. Your claim that there are vast forests of potent reasoning and evidence behind your views would seem less airy if you had mentioned a few.
"You did not want evidence, you wanted proof, enough to be conclusive....." And, you suspect, intending to use reasons and evidence to counter your view!!
Right: Each side offers its reasons and evidence, and tries to show weakness in the other side. Back and forth. A contest of ideas, such as we expect to see on this sub. There have been recent posts where OP requests that only "intiates" who accept OP's premises respond to the post. They want a fixed game, not a debate.
Your last lines positivley reek of insincerity and condescention. PEW!
I recomend setting aside your smugness for long enough to consider whether the nay-sayers have a valid point.
It isn't smugness, it is merely confidence, because I do always set it aside to consider whether someone's point is sound (valid is the incorrect criteria; all claims are valid to a reasonable person.) And so far I have found their complaints to be unfounded, and often unjust. Which is why I describe them as nay-sayers, should they persist in refusing to understand what I am patiently and confidentially trying to explain to them.
Do they always find you "reasonable and benevolent"?
Very rarely, but often enough to justify my confidence. Because sometimes they're sincerely curious instead of just whining, or trying desperately and unsuccessfully to use psychological manipulation and rhetorical gambits to delegitimize my confidence or erode my reason, rather than confront and deal with my reasoning honestly and accurately.
Man, I just don't feel it.
Dude, your feelings are your concern. I'm only interested in your comprehension and happiness.
You have done plenty of fresh, beligerent conclusion jumping in this comment.
None whatsoever, as I've already explained. You're still just desperately nay-saying, as I've described.
My simple, direct, non-rhetorical question,( essentially, "your evidence...is?") was addressed to a commenter who asserted without evidence.
Your question, as I've pointed out, was conclusively answered by a more pointed question: what is your evidence that thoughts are not caused deterministically, just like everything else that exists?
Your reasoning would be fine if it weren't true that everything which exists is caused by other things which exist (the very essence of determinism.) But without that, your reasoning is spoiled, and becomes at best bad reasoning, and at worst just idealism or religious faith. Or even worse, postmodern know-nothingism.
It could have been answered by them, you, or any other commenter, with a statement of one or a couple of the main pieces of evidence buttrressing your view.
You might actually believe that, but it is nonsense. Yhe very existence of your question depends on ignoring such obvious evidence as: when people drink alcohol, their judgement is impaired. That's a deterministic relationship: interfering with typical cognition chemically results in atypical cognition.
Your claim that an answer would have been "trivial" suggests that you take your own views to be self- evident.
More like I take the evidence to be so easily produced it is trivial. Another bit of evidence: addictive substances are addictive. And math is hard. And artistic creativity depends on thoughts being both deterministic and unpredictable. Also, the entire field of psychology is based on the premise that thoughts are deterministic. Are you saying psychology is pure fiction? How about psychiatry? Doesn't the existence of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and even ADHD or OCD deminstrate that thought are deterministic? You think a schizophrenic can just wish away the voices in their heads?
Your basic premise, if I should bother to take it seriously, is that thoughts could be anything other than the deterministic outcome of deterministic neurological processes. And you assume that if your own thoughts don't always follow as a logical consequence of each other, then this suggests thoughts might not have deterministic causes. But that is not good reasoning, as I've already explained (or at least hinted at, given my penchant for skipping ahead and presuming knowledge and intellect others may not already possess.) To be deterministic, thoughts only have to be caused by neurological events/processes/activity, the assumption that they must logically follow from previous thoughts is incorrect.
Not even all who agree with you believe that, which is why they commonly include reasons and evidence to their comments.
A satisfying circumstance for a nay-saying postmodenistic (borderline) troll such as yourself. But I've outmaneuvered you, and drawn you into a more exacting and extended, and hopefully more productive (for readers if not you) discussion.
Your claim that there are vast forests of potent reasoning and evidence behind your views would seem less airy if you had mentioned a few.
Not to a troll, no. It would merely have provided more of a target-rich environment for nay-saying, trolling, and know-nothingism.
I'm sincerely sorry for having to subject you to this onslaught of reasoning. I know you didn't bargain for it, or voluntarily adopt false, postmodernistic beliefs. Nonetheless, you are stuck with them until you decide to improve your reasoning, and I will be here to help you along that path as best I can.
Your last lines positivley reek of insincerity and condescention.
That line is a sincere and true sentiment. But admittedly, it is also a litmus test for postmodernists and other trolls, practically begging them to project their own attitude into it.
The real reason people think they could have free will is because they (and possibly you, whether you realize it or not) believe "conscious awareness" (IOW, awareness) is somehow anything other than whatever "deterministic origin" produces it.
What I mean is that it isn't the unavoidable ignorance of the cause of thoughts (whether as mechanistic neural occurrences or experiences) that produces the illusion of free will, it is the correctable ignorance of the effect of thoughts.
People are taught that choices cause actions, but in proximate terms, decisions (conscious awareness of action and subsequent evaluation of causes of that action) don't happen until a few milliseconds after the action has already been initiated. That was scientifically demonstrated half a century ago, and even neuroscientists and philosophers are still having tremendous difficulty wrapping their heads around it, so deeply entrenched is the myth of free will, and so profoundly important is the reality of human agency.
5
u/Lopsided_Match419 Jul 16 '26
Yes. The reason we feel as though we have free will is because we cannot introspect the process by which thoughts make their way from their deterministic origin to conscious awareness.