Identifying Free Will

[William]

Fundamental to the Christian Belief Systems shared by a majority of those calling themselves "Christians"

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

Re: Wikipedia
Free Will:

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.

Re: Wikipedia
The Ego:

The ego (Latin for "I",[19] German: Ich)[20] acts according to the reality principle; i.e., it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that, in the long term, bring benefit, rather than grief.[21] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own preconscious rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[22] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #41]

Woah! I do believe you're addressing me by mistake because your post here makes absolutely no sense to what I've said.

Not enough data in which to make a reply. Please elaborate.

eta. If you are concerned that I was addressing what you said, then I was, but in context to a conversation between Kylie and I which you interjected your opinion into.
In that I was offering Kylie [and any other reader] another perspective and pointing out that the science can be interpreted in a number of ways, because the science is the information rather than any one interpretation of that information.

So - in effect, I was offering an alternate interpretation, still based from information which the process of science has collected.

[Kylie]

Out of curiosity, why do you think free will is NOT real?

I have not found nor been shown any evidence of it existing as an actual property of the Universe. As far as I can tell, it is a fictional invention.

What would you accept as evidence for free will?

Also, have you had any evidence it could NOT exist?

[Kylie]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

Irrelevant. It can happen to ANYTHING and it would render predestination impossible.

[Miles]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

Irrelevant. It can happen to ANYTHING and it would render predestination impossible.

And your evidence is ____________________________________________________________________ .


.

[William]

Out of curiosity, why do you think free will is NOT real?

I have not found nor been shown any evidence of it existing as an actual property of the Universe. As far as I can tell, it is a fictional invention.

What would you accept as evidence for free will?

Having it identified would be a good start.

Also, have you had any evidence it could NOT exist?

No. I do not have any evidence that the flying spaghetti monster could NOT exist either.

[Kylie]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

Irrelevant. It can happen to ANYTHING and it would render predestination impossible.

And your evidence is ____________________________________________________________________ .


.

If even a single event can be non-predestined, then that event could negate the possibility of something that is predestined. For example, Schrodinger's Cat as I mentioned in post 36. If I am predestined to pat the cat tomorrow, then how could it be that the cat could die today? The random event of the atom decaying would result in the death of the cat, and the event that I was predestined to do tomorrow would now be impossible.

[Kylie]

Out of curiosity, why do you think free will is NOT real?

I have not found nor been shown any evidence of it existing as an actual property of the Universe. As far as I can tell, it is a fictional invention.

What would you accept as evidence for free will?

Having it identified would be a good start.

Both Miles and William have defined it as, "the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

I'm happy to use that definition if you'd like.

Also, have you had any evidence it could NOT exist?

No. I do not have any evidence that the flying spaghetti monster could NOT exist either.

On the other hand, most people would say that there is a lot of evidence that we are capable of freely choosing our actions. The same can not be said for the FSM. So I think that's a false equivalency there.

[Miles]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

Irrelevant. It can happen to ANYTHING and it would render predestination impossible.

And your evidence is ____________________________________________________________________ .


.

If even a single event can be non-predestined, then that event could negate the possibility of something that is predestined. For example, Schrodinger's Cat as I mentioned in post 36. If I am predestined to pat the cat tomorrow, then how could it be that the cat could die today? The random event of the atom decaying would result in the death of the cat, and the event that I was predestined to do tomorrow would now be impossible.

Okay, then the "ANYTHING" you mention is me making a right hand turn and not a left-hand turn when I reach Bryant Avenue. So how do quantum mechanical events render my right-hand turn an impossibility?


.

[William]

Out of curiosity, why do you think free will is NOT real?

I have not found nor been shown any evidence of it existing as an actual property of the Universe. As far as I can tell, it is a fictional invention.

What would you accept as evidence for free will?

Having it identified would be a good start.

Both Miles and William have defined it as, "the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

I'm happy to use that definition if you'd like.

There seems to be no logical reason to even refer to it as 'free' will, if the same definition can apply to simply having will/being willful.

[Purple Knight]

Okay, then the "ANYTHING" you mention is me making a right hand turn and not a left-hand turn when I reach Bryant Avenue. So how do quantum mechanical events render my right-hand turn an impossibility?

I think his idea is that since all events are connected, if some of them are random (and not predestined) then all of them are.

An atom of carbon 14 might have decayed and shot out a single beta particle at the precise instant where it would pass through some guy's skin and give him an itch. He decides he's itchy and sweaty in addition to the headache he already has and he actually wants to go home, so instead of making Bryant Avenue a through street, he made the easier choice and decided not to invoke eminent domain and deal with the paperwork to seize a property that was in the way. So, though randomness, there now isn't a right turn at that junction; you can only go straight or left.

Yes, that's contrived, but you get the idea.

However, I don't think this gives the meaning people are seeking to the term "free will" - it just means there's not a script. That's not what I think free will ought to mean.