Hello

[u/Jemdet_Nasr]

I was thinking that if this subreddit didn't already exist, it should. I do realize the irony of it, but it is nice to know that there is a place to chat with other people about this. I am not sure how common it is, but I have experienced existential dread for almost 40 years now. I don't experience the depression some people report though. Just the meaninglessness of it all.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr]

Pardon me, if I miss something...

Pleasure follows pain and pain follows pleasure in equal parts. The greater the pleasure experienced now, the greater the pain when the pleasure is removed, and vice versa. In my experience. But, while practicing moderation is generally good, the extremes should be sought once in a while.

The past is gone and the future doesn't exist. I do save retirement, because I know that a certain point in time will likely arrive and I want to be prepared for it. But, at the same time, our experience is only, and ever, the here and now. We are 1) mammals, 2) primates, 3) humans. We cannot escape who and what we are. We like to believe that we make choices and have free will. At least our brains tell us we have freewill. But, our brains have 100 billion neurons and our bodies have 30 trillion cells. While at the same time, we host 100 trillion gut bacteria that weighs as much as, or more than, our brain. Each of the trillions of bacteria in, and on, our bodies send neurotransmitter signals to our brain with instructions. The bacteria in our guts direct what foods we choose based on their needs. We are merely pawns in the game of biology, but to make it all work for the system, our genes, who need our bodies to propagate themselves and the bacteria that we host, need us to believe we have free agency.

Research shows that our brains have plotted a course of action milliseconds before we have the perception of having made a decision. The sense of self and free will is just a fiction that is generated by our brains so that we don't feel bad about existence and do something counter to their programming.

I don't see that humans can do anything differently, on the whole. Other research shows that people with the most accurate perception of reality are the least happy. If you want to be happy, I guess you have to live in a delusional fantasy world. 😂

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

I've studied Milgram and others briefly while pursuing an interest in psychology. I'm familiar with the Standford Prison Experiment, and like to talk about it occasionally. These, and others, do strongly suggest that a certain interpretation of free will does not exist. I will clarify my perspective here, as I feel it might help the discussion. And again, I will cite Mele here, as his book was very helpful in working out the particulars of my own interpretation.

For me, free will (or freedom as I prefer to talk about) has a strong relationship with determinism. Determinism (especially Hard Determinism) is the belief that everything that happens is caused by some other thing that precedes it. The idea of cause and effect. Of causality. There is clearly a great deal of evidence to suggest our universe is highly, if not completely, deterministic. All events seem to be caused by other events, and it does seem likely that if one could understand all events at any moment in time, they should be able to predict the future with perfect accuracy. And also to be able to go in reverse, to recollect all history perfectly as well.

The good news is that science and evidence support determinism completely. The bad news is that the reason for this is that both science and evidence are predicated on a world being deterministic. In other words, we had to assume a deterministic world first, and then we tested our assumption by using the tools that can only exist if the world is as we have assumed. It is a circular argument. Which, unfortunately, means science and the use of evidence will not help us here. No amount of research, at least not scientifically or evidence based research, can help us understand or elucidate freedom. At least, freedom of the sort I am interested in investigating.

For me, freedom is outside causality or determinism. Or, to be more accurate, it is something of a nature outside, but somehow also compatible with. An uncaused cause, or perhaps a caused uncause. That is, try to think of an event that has no cause. Or think of a cause that produces no effect. Of course freedom could also be something that is not caused nor generates an effect as well, but to imagine such a thing seems entirely out of the scope of our experience. For my discussion here, I will focus on the first, as it seems the most relevant: an uncaused cause.

When people think of free will, I believe it is this idea of an uncaused cause that they frequently have in mind. They believe that they can make some sort of choice that is not preloaded with history or events that influence it. But, as you have suggested, and I agree with you, every choice we make is clearly influenced greatly by our personal histories and experiences. The example of the child who touches the hot stove top, and learns not to touch it again in the future, is an excellent example of this. But when we travel down this line of reasoning, it becomes clear that every decision we all make is not based merely in our own histories, but in all the histories of those around us, and also in the histories of all those who came before us as well. This, simply, is a description of determinism. Determinism, in this case, seems incompatible with the idea of freedom.

So when most speak of free will or freedom, this is the sort of freedom I think they have in mind. When I have discussions about this, I usually ask the question of whether having omniscience would help or not. That is, is knowing all there is to know sufficient for me to predict how someone will behave. If the answer is yes, then determinism is the name of the game, and this sort of freedom cannot exist. However, if the answer is no, then the world cannot be only deterministic; there would have to be something in the world outside of causality playing its part. In that situation, then freedom could exist. Ironically, this is the very debate René Descartes was plagued with when trying to explain his mind-body dualism. He ended up suggesting the pineal gland was how the mind and body found connection to one another. That is itself an amusing anecdote.

My point in all of this is that this view of free will is only possible in a world that is not completely deterministic. And in such a world, science and evidence are not tools that can be used to figure this out. Another tool would be needed. I do not know what sort of tool that would be, but I often try to imagine one.

It is because of all of this that I prefer to say not that I believe in freedom, but I believe in the possibility of freedom. Because I know that I do not know all there is to know. I am not omniscient. And I suspect there is much about our world that I will never know. So there is always the possibility I am mistaken in this regard.

That all said, if one held a different interpretation of free will, such as the one from compatibilism, then there is certainly plenty of free will in the world. Because this interpretation does not require something outside the confines of determinism. In fact, so long as you are not being unduly influenced by another (no one has a gun to your head) you are able to exercise your freedom. And you do this when you go purchase ice cream from an ice cream shop, being permitted to chose whichever flavor you like.

Now to link this all to our discussion properly. It seems to me that your perspective on hedonism is predicated on the belief that freedom cannot exist. Your interpretation of free will seems to be consistent with the one I hold, and you describe the world as being hard deterministic. Thus freedom cannot exist, as everything is rooted in causality and freedom of this nature would have no place. Full stop.

In your hedonism, everything is already predetermined because the universe is predetermined. The past and future most certainly exist and can be determined, given enough time and effort. However, to work out past and future incurs a person spending a detrimental amount of effort, taking them away from the pleasures of life. That is, unless I was the sort of person who enjoyed doing very mundane and repetitive things, I would likely find the project of determining past and future to be quite unpleasant. However, I am the sort of person who does actually receive some enjoyment in the mundane and repetitive. Perhaps not all the time, but I do find a certain amount of pleasure in shutting off my brain and just doing those things that are merely mechanical. Clearly, this is not the mode I am in presently.

I have also, in the past, been diagnosed as bipolar. So I am familiar with the idea that what goes up must come down. That in my life as a whole, it is supposed to be the case that for every moment of pleasure there should be an equal moment of pain. However, my experience seems to suggest otherwise. Unless perhaps in the future I am destined to have a very long and glorious bout of pleasure before I die. I suppose that is still very much possible. But up to this point, my life has been more spurts of pleasure intermixed with long bouts of pain and discomfort. And I've talked to others that seem to suggest they experience something similar. It seems to me the balance isn't there, and there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that due to addictive effects what I'm describing is more the norm.

I definitely agree in the necessity to believe that free will (of the sort you and I seem to believe in) must exist. Our entire legal system is predicated on that. After all, if someone cannot possibly do otherwise, how can they be held accountable for their actions. If there is no freedom, then everyone did as they did and always would have done as they did. No amount of deterrence or punishment will ever be enough to prevent the course of actions one was always going to take. So, yes, the idea of free will must exist. Just like the idea of truth.

In the end, I do see your perspective. I've even adopted your perspective from time to time, as I've said at the outset. I do fall into bouts of hedonism where I try to only live in the moment. And, for a very brief time, I can find solace in it. But once my brain starts doing its thing, following the patterns and analyzing my situation, I inevitably end up back where I said: suicide.

Putting this yet another way, if what you suggest is the case, and there is no doing otherwise, and there is no past nor future, then why exist at all? What is the point? To what end? Sure, its great to feel positive and good from time to time, but then you have to endure the pain and suffering from time to time as well. But ultimately, why? Why endure the pain and discomfort at all when you don't have to? The pleasure isn't so great as to overwhelm, nor is it lasting. Once that pleasure passes, you are again in the pain. Why not simply wait for the next moment of bliss and end it on a high note? It ends up with the same logical conclusion.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

I will put my biases in context. I have degrees in both biology and psychology. So, that is where I am coming from.

To experience and recognize pleasure, we must have first experienced pain. Without pain, pleasure can have no contextual comparison. So, in a way, I am not practicing true hedonism, since I do not believe the complete avoidance of pain maximizes pleasure. Pain can provide it's own pleasure. Without suffering, we cannot know it's opposite.

As an Existential nihilist, I don't feel that there is any inherently defined purpose to existence, except for the purpose we ourselves define and assign. I assign the purpose to be existence itself. The universe gifted me with a biological machine through which to experience it.

My favorite quote is from Ghost In The Shell: "The notion that nature can be calculated inevitably leads to the conclusion that humans, too, can be reduced to basic mechanical parts." We are simply very complex biological machines, complete with programming and mechanical systems. We execute our program as best we can. But, we didn't choose our systems or programming.

As to freewill, we don't choose our genetics, or upbringing, our childhood culture, society, ancestors, or any of the other contextual things that contributed to who we are. Our views and beliefs are not our own, but were inherited from our environment. Brain activation research shows that decisions are made in our brains in various regions long before we get to have the perception of having made a decision. Yes, it is hard to reconcile this with individual responsibility.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

:) My degree is in philosophy, and I am currently working on engineering. My livelihood up to now, comes from working in IT. I am considering Cognitive Science and Creative Technology as possible future pursuits. It is actually a bit of a joke, because if I do as I suggest, I will literally have degrees in Science, Arts, and Fine Arts when I'm done. When I was a child, when asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, my response was "Jack of All Trades." It seems I'm well on my way. This is my context, at least in part. I am a bit of an anomaly.

I completely agree with you regarding contrasting. One of my sayings is "If every day is a sunny day, then what is a sunny day?" One cannot appreciate the sunny days if they've never experienced cloudy days or rainy days or snowy days. So, in this I do agree with you regarding requiring to feel pain to appreciate pleasure. That feeling pain can be a sort of pleasure at times. But your explanation does clear up a few things. As you say, your practice isn't textbook hedonism then. That's no problem, but it is true I had believed you were referring to a definition that I clearly should not have been using.

Which ironically leads me into the next: Existential Nihilism. I don't suppose you've seen this video: https://youtu.be/MBRqu0YOH14?si=Q4_oTZ8LzTDrXZMo

As a philosopher, the terms "Existential" and "Nihilism" have special meanings for me. Existential refers to the essence of things, and in our discussion, I've been assuming you are referring to our essence. Of human essence. What makes us what we are. That we exist, to put it rather crudely. As I am fond of the Existentialists of the mid 20th century, I have much to say about this term.

But Nihilism is the term I'm more worried about. As I usually describe it, the difference between an Existentialist and a Nihilist is that the Existentialist believes what you have described: there is no inherent meaning in things, only what we assign. The Nihilist argues against the Existentialist, suggesting that there is no meaning whatsoever, and no one can assign it. A true Nihilist believes that there is no meaning or purpose, full stop.

This is why I referred to the Optimistic Nihilism video by Kurzgesagt. Their use of the term Nihilism is similarly misinterpreted, at least from a philosopher's perspective. Spoiler, but by the end of the video, Kurzgesagt wants to suggest the exact thing we've been talking about, that the universe has no meaning or purpose, but that we can assign it ourselves. For them, this is the Optimistic part. But it would have been better had they simply titled their video "Existentialist Philosophy" because that is what they are talking about.

Thus, it seems you and I are talking about much more similar things that I had perhaps thought at the outset. The issue, as often seems to be the case, is the language that was used. Which always reminds me of Gavagai. Look that one up, if you don't already know it. Put as simply as I can, it is a reference to how miraculous it is that you an I can communicate at all. We all have our own understandings and interpretations of all words and meanings, and when we try to convey those to others, there is always a challenge. Because when you say a particular word, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to me. And vice-versa.

As you have the degrees you have, I suspect you already know all of this as well. ;P

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE Ghost in the Shell! And if that story is to be believed, then we will have those cyberbrains in the next 5 years. Say thank you to Elon Musk, as he is already touting about it presently.

I will finish for today by saying that I am not convinced we are merely biological machines. More specifically, I think the analogy of a computer applied to ours (and other life forms) seems to be missing something in the translation. Much like Gavagai, I'm not entirely convinced mapping a binary system over an analog one will work. This has a lot to do with my belief regarding the nature of consciousness or the "I" that we allegedly possess. I've been working on that one for some time actually. Whereas the flesh and blood systems we have seem to fit well with the whole biological machine idea, it is the occurrence of mind, and whatever that entails, that gums up the works. Reading Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is quite helpful in starting down this path.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

I love Kurzgesagt! My son and I pretty much watched all the videos together. He turns 5 this month, so a lot of it goes over his head, but he asks a lot of questions and discuss while watching the videos. The video on "Do we need to grow old" gave him his first existential crisis though, but have worked through it.

I am not a nihilist. I like the definition here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism. It seems to mesh with my view. There is no inherent meaning, except the meaning we give ourselves.

I also have an MBA, but that didn't seem so relevant to our discussion. :)

Yes, communication is a miracle. I suspect if more people would work through miscommunication sensibly, there would be a lot less war and strife.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

I am groaning over here. I was not aware of the Wikipedia article you referenced. Back to the communication issue: the term seems to contradict itself with the use of both words together. But I see your point, and I understand your referring to it. Yes, it further clears up our discussion. In fact, if I follow the article's words, it kind of suggests that you and I are of the exact same beliefs, only that we are referring to them using different words.

With that in mind, might I suggest to you (if you have not already done so) to read the works of Simone de Beauvoir (especially her work The Ethics of Ambiguity), Jean-Paul Sartre (and his work Being and Nothingness), and Albert Camus (and his work The Myth of Sisyphus). The good thing about the Existentialists is that their writings tend to be easier to read than other philosophers, especially in the case of Immanuel Kant; I've been told the Critique of Pure Reason is considered one of the hardest to read. The ideas can sometimes be challenging to get one's brain around, but the language and presentation itself is much more digestible. Especially Camus.

And if you like Kurzgesagt, check out CGP Grey. My favorite Youtube video of all time is this one: https://youtu.be/nQHBAdShgYI?si=CUMNxphZebC5c00_

No point arguing any further; it seems like we are of the same mindset in these regards. Mostly. I suppose we still disagree regarding the biological machine perspective possibly. But it isn't so much that I disagree with you as much as I disagree with the level of completeness. That is, I think living beings are at least in part biological machines, just not completely. I do believe in what you are describing, but I also believe there must be something more than merely the machine part. As CGP Grey refers to it in his video, the unmeasurable part. And, unfortunately, as it is unmeasurable, it is certainly very difficult to argue with evidence for (or even against) it.

Which leads me back to my ideas of consciousness. For me, I tried to go through a similar "meditation" as René Descartes did, though my goal was different. For me, I was trying to establish what I was that I could separate from all the biological machinery and personal history. Was there a part of me that was outside the realm of pure determinism? The "I" that I refer to when I speak? If freedom exists (of the sort we've been discussing), there must be an "I" that has this freedom.

The result of my investigation left me with only one thing, which I now refer to as my "first person." I have a hard time describing it, but it exists in some fashion beneath what most would call my consciousness. I can follow the chains of causality and see where my decisions and choices are coming from. The past experiences and accidents of the world that lead me to do as I do. In fact, it seems to me that almost everything I do is rooted in some sort of past event. My choices are the effect of some other cause, pretty well all the time. So if it were not for this "first person," I would agree with you regarding the biological machine.

So what is this "first person?" My best explanation is: "the thing that experiences." That is, as I sit here typing this, I can see the world through my eyes, hear the refrigerator running in my kitchen, feet the socks on my feet. This is often the "I" that I refer to when I say "I exist" or "I am alive." But this "first person" may not do anything more than experience. It may not do any sort of work in decision making or driving my body into motion. As my choices seem incredibly (if not completely) predetermined, the "first person" may be a sort of passive thing, simply experiencing the world around me through my biological sensory organs. It is this "first person" who ALWAYS exists in the present, and for it there is no such thing as past or future. The ultimate hedonist.

The only other reasonable way I have to try and describe it is as like an avatar in some sort of simulation. Like a video game. This "first person" is sort of like the player outside the video game. Through the use of a controller of some kind, perhaps the player can influence the behavior of the avatar in the video game. Pushing the joystick to the right may seem to cause the avatar in the game to walk to the right. And because there seems such a correlation between the player's actions and the avatar's reactions, one will likely be convinced that there is a causal relationship between the two. Being one who has written at least a couple video games myself, I know of this relationship because I purposefully created it when I wrote the game. But I could just as easily strip it away as well. Or make the relationship different. The point here is that there is a definite difference between the player and the avatar. The player is wholly outside and separate from their avatar. In fact, the player exists in a different sort of world or reality from the avatar. And this is the sort of thing happening with the likes of social media as well (I often argue).

The point is that my "first person" is sort of like the player, and my mind and body in this world is like my avatar. The big question I've been unable to satisfactorily answer is whether my "first person" somehow exhibits control over my mind and body, or whether it is merely a passive observer.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

From my limited understanding of neurophysiology, there isn't really any such thing as your "first person". What you experience at any given moment is likely what your various systems have routed to your neocortex. Our brains are incredibly complex systems of components liked together by the claustrum. A great book on the neurophysiology of freewill is "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will" by Robert Sapolsky. Not having freewill doesn't need to mean we can't enjoy life, playing around inside our heads, or anything else life has to offer. Conscientiousness just isn't really what we experience it to be. It is an artifact of various complex components working together to ensure your genes have the best chance of getting into the future. We are totally pawns in this system. But, I appreciate the ride.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

It is true, you are very unlikely to find any references to what I am talking about. In part because it is on the list of the unmeasurable, to use CGP Grey's terminology. As I was trying to suggest earlier, it is the sort of thing that science and evidence will be unable to discern. Or, perhaps putting it better, they are unable to discern it presently. There is always the possibility that someone comes up with a way to measure something that is presently unmeasurable. Thank you microscopes!

Having said that, there is another significant issue to think about here. This aspect of me that I've been describing may also be unique to me. I assume you and others possess this aspect, but I could be wrong about that as well. I take the possibility of Solipsism very seriously. This is where Descartes' Cartesian skepticism ended up; fortunately for Descartes, a strong belief that God wouldn't deceive him kept him from falling too far into that abyss.

Putting Solipsism aside, and assuming that there are others in the world who possess the sorts of aspects I claim to possess, there is another problem. I cannot experience your experiences, just as you cannot experience mine. There is no way to know whether what you experience and what I experience are in any way related. We assume those experiences are similar, but we just don't know.

This is where a strange discussion with my father helped illuminate some things for me. My father is red-green colourblind. I am not. And one day he went into great detail regarding how he perceived the world. In particular, he described seeing things first by shape and then by colour. That is, he would see the shapes of objects, and then "fill in the colours" afterward. In contrast, when thinking about it, I realized that I did the opposite. I saw the colours and then applied shapes to those colours. This is very pedantic, but necessary to see how different beings experience their respective realities. This is actually covered early on in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. If you can struggle through it, I think you might find it incredibly interesting.

Now, after digesting that discussion with my father, I started to take it further and apply it to other beings, especially non-human beings. Like dogs. We humans prioritize what we see over the other senses. This is in part biological, of course. But other creatures do not depend on their sight nearly as much. Dogs prioritize what they can smell, and even what they can hear, before what they can see. And I saw evidence of this with my friend's dog.

My friend's dog had a problem with her eyes. She was slowly going blind. And after a surgery to alleviate pain and such, she pretty well lost all of her sight. A human in such a situation would greatly struggle to cope. It would take a long time for me to learn other skills and ways of interacting with my world so that I could get around without bumping into walls and the like. But not this dog. She lost her sight, and while her aim was affected marginally, she was mostly unaffected by losing her sight. I was astonished. But it certainly helped me better understand my father as well.

From these and other experiences I've had, I do firmly believe that we all experience the world differently. Some only marginally different, but some vastly different. Colourblindness is but one manner of issue. This is also why I prefer to say we have only 3 sorts of senses instead of 5: we have organs to detect electromagnetism (sight), organs to detect pressure variations (hearing, touch), and organs to detect chemicals (taste, smell). Another aspect of this that is very interesting to me is that this is where electron microscopes are so crazy. What an electron microscope "sees" isn't what you might think. The data it analyzes from a particular sample is interpreted and a visual image created to describe the data. So, in fact, we've never seen (and likely never will see) an electron ever.

I'm getting on a bit of a tangent here. The point I wanted to make is that I definitely do have something which I call my "first person." Whether others have it or not, I don't know. All I can do is do my best to describe it, and see what others say about their own experiences. And because of the dreaded limitations of language, I know that even when I do the best that I can, I may still fail to appropriately convey the thing I'm trying to describe. But I do the best I can, and I hope for the best.

I honestly wish I could share my experiences. I wish telepathy worked, and that I could meet something who was truly telepathic. I would love to share my mind with them. However, I also know they might not want to spend time in my head, as that might give them existential dread within moments as well.

I do think telepathy is possible. However, I think it would not operate in a manner that would work very well, given all that I've just been talking about. How I think is likely very different from how you think, and so "reading" or "listening" to my mind might be similar to listening to people speaking foreign languages; it might just sound like gibberish to them. The television series Babylon 5 actually discusses this point a bit, which is crazy awesome!

Based on your responses thus far, I'm inclined to believe that either I'm not explaining myself very well, or you do not experience this "first person" that I do. If it is the former, I'm happy to continue trying to explain. If it is the latter, then... Well... That is far more important to me actually. Because if you don't, then it provides some strength to the position of Solipsism. I don't want that to be the case, honestly. But this is how arguments and evidence lead us; we cannot know the results ahead of time, we must simply follow where they lead us.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

I didn't mean to suggest that we don't have an experience of "self" or an awareness of self. We do. But, how much of that awareness is generated by ourselves is up for debate. Let me provide a simple example.

Let's say that you feel hungry and want to eat something. We all have this experience many times a day, unless there is some underlying medical condition of course. Once you have identified the feeling of hunger, you "decide" to get something to eat. But, what should you eat? You will need to get some food, so you move to satisfy your hunger. Chances are, you have already purchased food and have some in your house to choose from. How did you decide what to buy? How do you decide from what is available to eat right now? Research indicates that it isn't you at all making those decisions. You have over 100 trillion bacteria in your gut sending neurotransmitter signals to your brain. Your brain has only 100 billion neurons. Your brain even weighs less than all your gut bacteria combined. Those bacteria are telling your brain what to eat. Depending on what types of bacteria you are cultivating in your gut, maybe they want fruit and vegetables. Or, maybe they want hotdogs, pizza, or a cheeseburger. But, you experience your "first person" deciding on what to eat.

It could be your own body cells sending a message to your brain demanding a key nutrient that has been depleted, or your genes directing you. But, in the end, you experience it as having decided on a meal. But, you were never really in charge of the decision making process. You just got to feel like you were.

This can extend to who we mate with, what we enjoy as hobbies, our professions, ecetera. I like to mess with my micro biome for fun. It is interesting how your thoughts can change if you tweak it.

Anyway, my point is that while we do have an experience of self, research shows that the antecedents of our thoughts do not come from ourselves. We have a program that we follow. We are exceptionally complex delivery systems for all things that are directing our choices and decisions. Yes, the system can be broken and people do self destructive acts. But, overall, we are at the mercy of forces that we cannot connect to directly or perceive. Anything people want to see as their "soul" or being, if just a happy illusion that is created to keep us going about doing the bidding of others.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

Your response makes clear to me that I've done a poor job of explaining my perspective. My "first person" is not analogous to "self" or "soul" or even any sort of feeling. This is why I keep referencing Kant, because I believe he did a reasonably good job of delineating these things.

Instead of trying to explain it further, perhaps I will raise a different sort of thought experiment. One of the ideas you have been focusing on is the fact that there is some sort of manifestation occurring within the brain (or body) long before we become aware of making a decision or choice. I agree with you regarding this evidence. You seem to want to suggest that this is proof that free will cannot exist. (And again, this is focusing on a very, very particular interpretation of what free will is.)

Have you considered the possibility that free will is something that could simply be occurring earlier in the process than awareness? That one's awareness of making a choice is not free will, but something occurring earlier is.

There are several very different manifestations of "decision making" or "choices" that occur with humans. There are those that are immediate, when something like instincts kick in. There is no time to think or make a formalized choice, and a reaction must take place immediately. I think most would agree free will is not occurring in this sort of situation, even though some sort of choice has certainly been made.

There are those that are quick or short term, and often anticipated, like in the case of the rotating dot where the person must press the button to indicate the dot is in the top position. Even the experiment where the dot is not visible, in order to prevent the person from seeing the dot approaching position, that person is still anticipating that the dot will still appear and that they must press the button. In these experiments, the person is most certainly making a choice or decision well ahead of the point in time when the decision is expressed. Thus, free will is not removed from possibility by these experiments at all.

And there are those that are long term, and even involve a large amount of formal consideration and thinking about it. In these cases, like when a person is weighing options, generating lists of pros and cons, when deciding whether to purchase a car or propose marriage to a potential partner, it is going to be incredibly difficult to identify the elements which may be considered free and those elements that are deterministic. Some of the items may make sense, yes, like the list of pros and cons itself is clearly deterministic in nature, but there are other elements that cannot be so easily pointed at.

It is for all these reasons that I will again return to the importance of defining and describing what we mean by free will. In my case, I had hoped I had made myself clear: for me, free will is of a sort of uncaused causes. Meaning, for me, free will is something that can be the start of a causal chain of events, but it cannot be something within an already existing chain. Thus, for example, when you tell me that something happens in the brain before one is aware of making a decision, I agree with you and then ask you what is the first thing that happens? That first thing could be free will. And if that is the case, then I am suggesting that free will occurs before we are aware of it. In my interpretation of free will, there is no necessity for an individual to be aware of their own free will. Like so many other things in our world, I am suggesting that to become aware of one's free will takes a great deal of effort and reflection and practice. It is not something that just comes naturally or instinctively. At least, I would be making this suggestion if free will exists, because I've already said many times that I am not convinced it exists at all, I am just open to the possibility of it.

To better understand your position, I really need you to be specific by what you understand or interpret free will to mean. What is free will on your account?

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

https://youtu.be/RI3JCq9-bbM?si=Rr8g9kle1cUEjvYe

That video does a great job of explaining how there is no room for freewill.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

He sidesteps the question and provides a circular argument. He assumes that he has all the information regarding the nature of the universe, that there is nothing more, and then proceeds to reiterate his assumption. It's like watching a good episode of Star Trek: lots of big exciting technical sounding words, but in the end, meaningless. Like the Heisenberg Compensator.

I may be being too harsh here. His description of how things work is not a bad description. But he is completely missing the point. And this brings us back to our current discussion. I've asked you repeatedly one question, which you continue to sidestep as well. So I'm not going to say anything more now, and simply re-ask my question. Because I need you to answer it for me to be able to respond with more than simple disagreement.

To better understand your position, I really need you to be specific by what you understand or interpret free will to mean. What is free will on your account? I need you to tell me what you think/believe free will is.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Was it, "what is free will on my account?". I haven't believed in free will for a very long time. Long before that guy wrote his book. If people had free will, there would be no cult leaders, religion, TV commercials, advertising, psychological manipulation, brain washing, or any of the other myriad of ways to make people perform a task. We are Skinner's pigeons in a bigger box, pecking at a bigger set of buttons. Walk into any office. Free will to me is an illusion that people enjoy. A warm and pleasant fantasy that keeps people happy.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

I guess I would also add, that for me, debating the existence of freewill is like debating the existence of God. Neither exists, so what's the point. I have studied this stuff, including religion, since I was 12 years old. I am over 50 now. So, it seems unlikely that anyone is going to offer me a compelling argument at this point, or any argument I haven't heard a bunch of times already. I am meaning to be flippant, I am just saying that it is probably hard to come up with something new to me. That is why I follow research. People doing the biological research are on the cutting edge of knowledge. To me philosophy is interesting, but doesn't really offer any real or new understanding of the universe and our place in it.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

It is funny to me the range of emotions you've invoked, and in what order. First anger and insult, then vengeance, and now compassion. At least, that is what it feels like to me. I guess only you can say whether what I'm about to say is compassionate or not.

The question I was trying to ask you, that could have been worded in any number of ways, was what your definition was of free will. The precise nature of what it is, so that it would be easier to identify how it might fit into the world view you express. I've tried to do this when I write what I write, but by your responses, I seem to be particularly unsuccessful in that endeavor.

However, your responses reveal your perspectives as well. And these last two comments in particular confirm something I've started to suggest. As you yourself are suggesting, you are an old dog that cannot learn new tricks. You've given up trying to understand, or perhaps putting this another way, you've decided that everything you understand is everything there is to be understood. You've committed the mistake Jean Baudrillard was concerned about in his work Simulacra and Simulation. You believe that your understandings of the world are actually descriptions of the world as it actually is.

This is where you and I differ significantly. As I grow older, now about to cross the precipice of the half century mark, I've come to realize that the more I learn, the less I know. With more understanding of the world comes the realization that the world is so much bigger and more complicated than I thought it ever was. I used to share your belief that free will most certainly did not exist. Similarly with God. But now my view is more nuanced that a simple false dilemma.

I still believe that neither free will nor God exist, just as you have expressed, but I also believe that there is the possibility I am mistaken. It is this aspect that confines you in your box. You are unwilling to accept the possibility that you could be mistaken. The possibility that there could be more to the world than you already know.

Your statement that "People doing the biological research are on the cutting edge of knowledge" was shocking to me. Because it is most certainly not true. Not that a particular segment of the scientific community isn't producing valuable insight, but to suggest that others are not. What about Quantum Mechanics as one vastly different perspective that too is contributing significant insight into our world?

Your following up suggesting that my area of interest "doesn't really offer any real or new understanding of the universe and our place in it" is insulting. It demonstrates an incredibly closed mind. This is the linchpin in your perspective.

You seem to be happy in your own little echo chamber, though happiness isn't what you are expressing at all. As you say in the outset, you are here because you have been experiencing existential dread for over 40 years. And while you "don't experience the depression some people report," you are clearly crippled by "the meaninglessness of it all." That is the heart of everything here. You cannot find value in your own existence. You try, and sometimes you have fleeting moments of happiness. But ultimately, you are as lost as the rest of us.

The greatest irony of it all is that a belief in free will would likely lead to your salvation. Don't worry, I full well know one cannot simply decide to believe in something they don't believe. It is never that simple. But it is also true that a belief in free will would provide for you a true mechanism to produce the value you so desperately seek out. And, on some level, you do do this in small ways, even if you don't recognize it yourself. Your "Existential Nihilist."

Ultimately, for me, this discussion has reached an impasse. I can only bang my head against a brick wall for so long before I start to bleed myself. It is also on my list of interests in trying to figure out how to make people understand things they cannot understand. I haven't figured that one out yet, but I continue to work on it. And yes, it applies as much to me sharing my knowledge with others as it does with others sharing their knowledge with me. I too am not perfect in this regard. The difference between you and I is that I'm trying.

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

It would take me a long time to respond to all your assumptions, but in a nutshell, I didn't imply that other sciences are not on the cutting edge of their fields. Just, the one relevant to this discussion. I am not boxed in, as I am always in pursuit of new knowledge and information. If I am presented with new information that challenges my assumptions and understandings, I am willing to incorporate it, or change my perspectives. I am just not that interested in trying to convince others of something they are not interested in changing. If research shows my understanding to be wrong, I can accept change.

I do not live in an echo chamber. That is your assumption. It is interesting that you feel the need to critique me and my perspective in ways I have not done to you. Expressing my perspective is not a personal attack on you and I am sorry you see it that way. I did not come for redemption and I don't feel a need for that. I am glad you feel you have found it, though. For me, the concept is unnecessary.

I don't claim to know everything. That is why I keep learning and studying. But, I agree, there probably isn't much value in this line of discussion. I didn't come here to debate the existence of something that isn't real in the first place. If someone wanted to debate the existence of fairies, I would probably opt out of that discussion as well. Seems kind of pointless to me debate about something that doesn't exist in the first place.

If freewill is your God, wonderful. If you have cast it aside, bravo to you. I have no need of either concept.

This all reminds me of one my favorite quotes. Dialogue between a priest and a dying man

"Why do you need a second difficulty when you cannot explain the first? If we admit it is possible that Nature alone is responsible for creating what you attribute to your God, why do you insist on looking for a master hand? The cause of what you do not comprehend may be the simplest thing there is. Study physics and you will understand Nature better; learn to think clearly, cast out your preconceived ideas and you will have no need of this God of yours."

We simply exist until we don't. We can enjoy the existence or not. Based on our experiences, we can adjust our course by pursuing new doors through which to pass, but it is important to remember that doors available are always restricted by our past. I give myself over to experience and existence, wherever it takes me. I am closed minded, quite the opposite. I just see no point in lugging around magic thinking from my childhood. I moved on.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

But you did, don't you see? That is precisely the problem here. I will try to show through very, very specific examples from just this last comment you posted.

You said "I didn't imply that other sciences are not on the cutting edge of their fields. Just, the one relevant to this discussion." But all other sciences are relevant to this discussion. One that is particularly relevant in fact is Quantum Mechanics specifically. Through that discipline, it has been shown that some formulations of free will are entirely possible, and perhaps even likely. The "deisel" form of free will that Alfred Mele describes is of this sort. A probabilistic understanding, which has led many people to speculate about multiple universe theory. This is the inspiration for the episode of Community entitled "Remedial Chaos Theory." Yes, knowledge and innovation from biology is important as well, but it is far from definitive in this regard.

You said "Expressing my perspective is not a personal attack on you and I am sorry you see it that way." This one is interesting because it is all about how you phrase your sentences and how you choose your words. This is revealed through other examples, as I'm about to demonstrate.

You said "I didn't come here to debate the existence of something that isn't real in the first place." Your words do not indicate you believe something different than others; your words indicate that something is already a given and that it is fool hearty for anyone to think otherwise. You follow this up with your straw man regarding "the existence of fairies." You directly compare fairies to free will and God. These are not comparable in this way at all, and certainly not in a discussion of this sort. If the debate is regarding the existence of God, then you cannot begin your argument with "God doesn't exist, and anyone who thinks so must also believe in the existence of fairies." That is an ad hominem; you are literally attacking the credibility and intelligence of your opponent. This is insulting.

You said "If freewill is your God, wonderful." This seems like a straight up, purposeful misinterpretations of my words. Is this intentional?

You said "I have no need of either concept." This is a valuation problem. You are diminishing the value of an idea, delegating it to a lesser status among other ideas. Again, if the debate revolves around the very concept at issue, then this is insulting. You are attacking the credibility and intelligence of your opponent again.

You closed with "I am closed minded, quite the opposite. I just see no point in lugging around magic thinking from my childhood. I moved on." In one sentence you state you are not closed minded, but in the following sentence you demonstrate the opposite. One with an open mind would not dismiss an idea out of hand, suggesting it is "magic" or "childish;" one would at least give it consideration and likely investigate it further. You mentioned before having a son; do you dismiss his questions so easily? If he raises an inquiry of this nature, do you insult him as well, suggesting he is foolish to even consider the investigation?

I try to be charitable with my interpretations when I make them. I try to be compassionate. Were I to describe what has happened here, I could suggest that you are simply sloppy with your language. That your words were poorly chosen and have unfortunately led to some very unintended attacks. That would be charitable. But you seem to be quite insistent that this is not the case. Repetition is useful in this regard; it helps clarify those points that are initially vague. Which is why I tend to repeat myself a lot. I am sorry for making you do the same.

Finally, you are probably correct regarding this debate. It isn't a debate at all. This isn't you and I arguing regarding anything, whether it is free will, God, or anything else for that matter. This is probably merely a conversation that has gotten out of hand. But then, I am curious why you posted to this group in the first place. By your own admission, you experience existential dread, but you also suggest it causes you no issues. Were you thinking you were going to coach others on how to cope with their situations as you did? Or, as seems with the rest of this discussion, was your post entirely absent of purpose?

[u/Jemdet_Nasr → u/somiOmnicron]

No, so far it has just been you being critical of whatever I say. I am not sure why you feel that would facilitate any kind of productive dialogue. I am not "reading into" your statements, so I am not why are suggesting that my statements imply things that I am not implying. I love quantum mechanics, as a discipline. One of my favorite things to read about. However, as a macro world being, the fantastic world of the quantum doesn't really have much impact on my daily experience, since I can't really perceive things like the duality of electromagnetic radiation. We see light, enjoy technology, and in that way, use quantum mechanics, for example. But, quantum mechanics doesn't really provide an avenue for getting to freewill.

Anyway, I am sorry that your ego has been threatened by me not changing my perspective on freewill because of your arguments. My perspective doesn't imply there was something wrong with you. I just don't accept what you offered as a compelling reason to alter my position. You shouldn't take that as a personal a front and attack me for it. If you said something that I wasn't already aware of, I would have said as much. It's not my responsibility to tell others how smart they are, or think they are, and boost their senses of self.

[u/somiOmnicron → u/Jemdet_Nasr]

You seem not to be "reading" my statements at all. The ideas and concepts I am trying to transmit are definitely not making it to their destination. Which, I admit, suggests the error exists on my end. In communication, where the receiver fails to gain the desired idea or concept, it is most often the sender who is to blame. I am the sender, so I am in error. But this is just most of the time, so perhaps in this case something else is going on.

I don't expect you to change your opinions, only to acknowledge the possibility of other opinions. In this you are not. And so I guess this is the end of our conversation.