CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego

by Terry 159 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  Terry, in 1957, the Borg had an article in the Awake magazine specifically speculating on the relationship between the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and free will.

  What is interesting about such arguments is the manner in which one can differentiate between the group and the individual.

  Without the individuals there is no group. The behavior of the group qua "group" is a sort of mental construct.

  One pointed example would be the statement : Nine out of ten doctors prefer FUGBUTTON'S NAVEL JELLY.

  The manipulation occurs when you discover that five hundred doctors were asked about Fugbutton's Navel Jelly and only nine of them

  "preferred" it over other leading brands. By bracketing the sample into groups of Ten and selecting out one of those which included Nine doctors who preferred the Fugbutton brand a skew results in the reporting.

  Why do I mention this?

  In the AWAKE! article a similar inference is being suggested vis a vis "Free Will."
• 

  Terry

  Evolutionary psychology is largely the study of subconscious motives. Those of us who study it notice again and again that our motives just happen to coincide with the strategy which would maximise the number of genes we might pass on.

  Hear! Hear!
• 

  Terry

  You did tie those together early on when you said nothing was truly random and things had to play out the way they played out. You mentioned it and referenced math in your opening post. If they are difference, why did you try to tie them together in your opening hypothesis?

  Here is what I said:

  There is always an algorithm underlying it.

  Randomness is our ignorance of the nature of inevitable consequent events.

  A DESTINATION is a chosen END. PRE-destination is selected before the journey begins. Genetic influece has no certain "end" in mind because there is no mind.

  (Does this post seem familiar?)
• 

  Terry

  I decided to go back to the beginning (a good place to start!) and re-read the entire 7 pages to see where the wheels came off the garbage truck!

  I think it was here:

  Terry: Everything acts according to its nature.

  Nothing escapes its own nature.

  Notverylikely:

  Ah, I knew something was wrong and I figured out what it was. You are correlating the physical laws of the universe (i.e., gravity) and instinct with human choices and the ability to make decisions.

  Notverylikely:

  "Your original premise, that a rock has as much choice whether or not to fall as I do when deciding what I want for lunch, is flawed. Therefore, any conclusion you draw from it is at least highly suspect.

  ______________________________________________________________________________________

  This mischaracterizes my first statement! Later in that same opening statement I said:

  Terry: The things that happen are the result of events following their own natural bent.

  Is free choice an illusion?

  We don't speak of actions in Nature as "choices" do we? Yet, we speak of our own actions that way.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Terry, I think this determinism regarding our free will or lack thereof ignores the fact that at the smallest level, the Universe is indeterminate. If we leave all metaphysics to one side, and if Mind is merely an epiphenomenon of carefully organized Matter, and the human brain is a form of quantum computer, then all deterministic bets are off, it seems to me.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

  The quantum mind hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness, and suggests that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. There are several quite distinct quantum mind theories, and these are discussed in the sections below.

  It's an interesting read, regardless.

  BTS
• 

  notverylikely

  Things you said, Terry, about randomness and math and INEVITABLE events:

  I don't really think anything is precisely "random". How could nature be random?

  Randomness doesn't exist in nature as far as I'm aware.

  Mathematicians will tell you there really is no such things as "random".

  Randomness is our ignorance of the nature of inevitable consequent events.

  I am saying that no randomness exists only seeming unpredictible chaos.

  YOU brought randomness and math into it, not me. You don't get to now say discussing it is a deflection. If you didn't understand the concepts, it's not now my issue that you brought them up.

  This mischaracterizes my first statement!

  How so? You were suggesting that a rock has no choice but to fall, just as I had no choice in what I had for lunch, things following their own nature.

  Re: Evolutionary psychology... Hear! Hear!

  Except when people do things that directly prevent passing on their genes, such as birth control, condoms and snip snip surgery. That proves that, just as much as there are inherent dispositions, we can choose to overrride them.
• 

  notverylikely

  If we leave all metaphysics to one side, and if Mind is merely an epiphenomenon of carefully organized Matter, and the human brain is a form of quantum computer, then all deterministic bets are off, it seems to me.

  That's one of the ideas behind fuzzy logic and quantum computing, creating computers that can make decisions in a non-flowchart method, weighing criteria based on a host of factors and assigning value and making decisions (not following a flow chart) based on that. Of course, we know from the Terminator movies that this is what will eventually be our downfall when Skynet becomes self-aware, but still, interesting idea.
• 

  notverylikely

  In the AWAKE! article a similar inference is being suggested vis a vis "Free Will."

  I think we can both agree that WTS pubs quote mine and twist data all the time.
• 

  gubberningbody

  Along the idea of gene maximization is the idea that all organized entities strive to survive. The entity known as the WTBS is attempting to survive and uses various strategies to maximize its own interests despite the damage to any individual along the way. This entity lacks free will too.
• 

  Terry

  You were suggesting that a rock has no choice but to fall, just as I had no choice in what I had for lunch, things following their own nature.

  Well, you force me to explain!

  It was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum statement! I was reducing the argument to the absurd by suggesting a boulder could "decide" anything or make a "choice".

  That is why I followed the boulder with the rhetorical comment:

  We don't speak of actions in Nature as "choices" do we?