Living without free will

General Discussion
61

That’s what you add and you have not explained why you believe that. Susan says the opposite.

Then I take responsibility. I don’t mean that a little inner me who has free will does so, because that would be to fall back into the endless cycle of the illusion of doing. The little me is a fiction. I mean only that consequences will follow and I will accept them. If someone tells me how wonderful the conference was and I missed it I won’t be angry that “I” made the wrong decision. It was made. That’s what happened and that’s how it is now.
– Susan Blackmore

62

Because like she says in that quote it’s the illusion of doing. Stuff just happens and it’s all robotic.

She calls the self just a collection of memes as well, in her other works, meaning there aren’t real people or individuals.

Thinking like that has consequences for how we treat people.

It’s like with that other guy above who I quoted before about the self and how it’s just memories so you can program a machine to be you, but more than that:

" “Actually, it’s very easy,” he says. “It’s sufficient to build a machine that thinks it’s you. Your identity is only given by your memories telling you that you are the same person as yesterday,” he explains. “If I can give an arbitrary system the memory that it was you yesterday, it will think that it is you.”

Sentient machines are the baddies in science fiction, but Bach says what comes after them should really worry us. Consciousness, he thinks, is a passing phase in the history of the universe. Hyperadvanced AIs will no longer have use for it; they will have learned all there is to learn. “Consciousness is a model of conflicts that you need to resolve with your attention,” Bach says. “And once you can do stuff automatically optimally, you don’t have consciousness about them anymore.”

The worst part won’t be our own uncertain fate in the world of the machines. It’s that a universe without consciousness will become a relentlessly utilitarian place. “I think it will be very boring,” Bach says. The machines will make the trains run on time, but see no point to self-expression: no art, no science, and probably no squirrels. Says Bach, “This idea that the universe creates this mirror that can reflect for an instant of its existence—this is really an accident.”"

63

Oh yeah, that guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

64

This one: The Wizard of Consciousness | Psychology Today

Though some other guy I was talking to is saying that we aren’t our memories or history:

"I recall having similar feelings when i first encountered these profound ideas. There’s a passage in the Bible that says, “In order to gain your life, you must lose it.” This is similar to what the Buddha meant by non-attachment. If you try to hold onto your breath, you’ll lose it, but if you let go, you’re instantly replenished with a breath of fresh air. Let life change and sculpt you with every breath, and don’t be afraid. Don’t cling to the past, because when you live in the present, you are not defined by your past. In the present, nothing can tell you that you’re a lie or that you’re not real. The present is always where you are, and it’s always where you’ll find your power; your “I am” power. Before venturing into the unknown, you have to cultivate your own light.

The type of meditation i practice usually is called emptiness meditation. The goal is to empty the mind as much as possible to remove mental noise. In this state, you focus on the act of paying attention itself. When done correctly, you recognize the difference between your pure consciousness and the filter of memories through which it views the world. You begin to understand that you are not your memories or your history. There’s a spark of awareness behind the personality we often identify with. So, I am who I am, regardless of who i am. I can be anyone, and i see that the “I” in you is the same “I” in me. The only difference between you and me is differential conditioning, but deep down, at our core, we are one and the same; the same “seed”, the same “inner child”.

If I found out tomorrow that i was just a character in a video game or someone’s dream, i wouldn’t think it would make me any less real than i already believe i am (my “I am” is still intact). It wouldn’t change my perception of my reality; it would only prompt me to reconsider the nature of my existence, not its reality. In my opinion, the concept of reality is often misunderstood."

65

Nothing to add to that. I don’t agree with every word this guy said, but most of it is pretty good

66

This is part of MaxTegmak’s MUH (mathematical universe hypothesis).

And there are other reasons to think we might be virtual. For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws. Perhaps that is not a given, but a function of the nature of the universe we are living in.

“If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”

The point is that even in a simulated reality, the mathematics of the laws that govern that world would be the same as in the “real” world.

1 Like
67

I don’t think that’s what the dude is getting at.

Like what? He’s saying that we aren’t our history or memory?

Along with some other crazy things when I was talking with him:

"You’re right it isn’t, because philosophy like process philosophy is incomplete. I just told you how to bypass it. Concepts and definitions are both the problem and the solution. You yourself stated that it is all we have.

If they are wrong, then you test and modify. And ultimately it will be wrong anyway, but it will be good enough to get a useful answer. The useful answer then in turn provides further insights."

And this exchange:

"It’s not a matter of right or wrong but more like concepts aren’t reality, no matter how you test or modify them, hence the Buddhist allegory of the finger pointing to the moon.
— Darkneos

Reality is just a concept, and Buddhism is merely a system of concepts. The idea of “no self” is also just a concept.

You see how saying that undermines your entire philosophy?
— Darkneos

You have to understand my philosophy first. If i say something about my philosophy it means it supports my philosophy, not contradict it. I haven’t even gotten to the part where actual static things exist as false concepts.

What is this?: " "

I kinda showed how your model doesn’t work though…
— Darkneos

My model (like any model) doesn’t work because models are concepts, and concepts don’t work. They are just patterns we use to help us do things in the world (which itself is also just a concept). The models work thru people. Equations do not solve themselves.

Though with there being no free will I guess I means achievement is meaningless since it was inevitable and not really deserved or earned, same with punishing people who break laws, or when it comes to dating and befriending others.
— Darkneos

“Free will” is just a concept, “achievement” is just a concept, the idea of “meaninglessness” or “meaning” is just a concept, “deserved”, and “earned” are also just concepts. In fact everything you or i have said in this thread are just concepts when you really think about it. There is no meaning to any of it. Also, vibes are just concepts too.

There was nothing about them you like nor did you really charm them, it was just clockwork.
— Darkneos

More concepts. What ever you do or don’t like about someone is not real. Feelings, and emotions are concepts, and thus do not refer to anything true or real.

Assuming stuff at the ground level affects the next level, and the next one, etc etc, until eventually you just get robots like humans. Kinda renders life and actions meaningless as well as all pursuits people do.
— Darkneos

Robots and humans are just concepts. Life, actions, and pursuits are concepts as well. Concepts are meaningless and anything derived from them are also concepts including everything you think and feel. Even the idea of a concept is a concept in and of itself. So you see, everything is just a figment of your imagination playing around with self invented concepts that have no connection to anything real."

Or this one:

> Not really, it just means you believe it does, whether it does or not is another matter. Lots of people think X supports their philosophy when it doesn’t. As for actual static things being false concepts, that’s unknown.— Darkneos

It’s not about a belief, because a belief is simply a concept. That is why anyone can believe anything they want. Who’s philosophy does X support? Is there any evidence that it does or doesn’t? For something to actually be true it must be unknown. Knowing it makes it false. I know this part can be confusing, but that is why it is true that there is a false vacuum which is a false concept. False concepts are true, at least by definition.

> It doesn’t really do much good to just dismiss things as concepts. But concepts do work if you can navigate the world. That’s just pragmatism.— Darkneos

Yes, but isn’t it just a model? It’s still not true even if it is useful. That’s why it takes two concepts to make something real. If concepts or models can only work thru a person, and a person is a concept, then it is by the fusion of false concepts that truth emerges. It is true because it now has effect in the world.

It also doesn’t do much good to believe in concepts. concepts are powerless on their own.

> Maybe, you’re not really going anywhere with that though, just undermining your philosophy.— Darkneos

My philosophy is based on the falseness of all concepts. Have you ever heard about double negatives?

> Not really. Emotions are real, same with what you like or don’t like about someone.— Darkneos

You said you don’t know what is real, but now you know that emotions are real? How does that work? Do you realize that what you think is real is just a concept in your mind. What happens when two false concepts come together?

> So what is your point then? So far this isn’t really much different from what I read in Buddhism, except their view doesn’t exactly dismiss concepts so much as acknowledge them as real and also not real. It’s called the two truths doctrine.— Darkneos

Any possible point that can be made is a concept. I would need to use words in order to communicate it, and words are concepts. The Buddhists fall for their own hype by saying that concepts are not real, and then they claim that the concepts that they profess are real. However, their doctrine of two truths is similar to my “double-false doctrine”.

> You really can’t see how what your said undermines your view. If it’s all concepts that means “real” is also a concept so you’ve essentially said nothing. Bravo.— Darkneos

It appears that you might be getting the point. Bravo to you sir.

> Though I’m glad I was exposed to that in the past, otherwise (dead serious now) I probably would have killed myself after reading that.
>
> Like I’m not even joking or playing, people saying stuff like that brought me to the edge several times. I think the closest I got was first reading solipsism, hand to be hospitalized for that.— Darkneos

I could tell you more, but i won’t. It’s heavy stuff, and i don’t know if you can handle it. We can stop if you want."

And this one too:

"Shouldn’t we expect reality to be incoherent? If concepts are all we have, and concepts are not true, then why would you expect concepts to coherently express the truth of reality?

Explain to me how a concept is real?

Not at all, it’s a subtle truth that you can’t grasp. Also the irony of a double false doctrine. By your logic your philosophy isn’t true and nothing is double false.
— Darkneos

That sounds like the point i was making. You might be getting it. Remember for something to be true it must first be false. A non-starter is a false start which implies a true end. The beginning and the end, the alpha and omega. The circle that that starts and ends at the same point everywhere on the circle. Do you understand that?"

My conversations with him felt more like nonsense.

68

Maybe they are. Why do they bother you?

69

Did you read any of it?

The whole about concepts got me thinking last night about whether we really know anything since everything is just concepts that we made up and that maybe the truth is some void of all of that.

Like how we created social rules, concepts, ideas, and mapped them to things and call that reality, but what if it’s just some elaborate fiction we made up? Like we just built a whole fantasy world for ourselves and took it to be reality but outside our brains, language, culture, etc, none of that matters and might not be true. We could all be living in delusion?

Maybe even going to far as to label arrangements of matter alive, and having feelings and moral worth, having to “live a life”, and maybe we are deluding ourselves into thinking this arrangement has some importance. Maybe regarding this arrangement of matters as human is another delusion…

Seeking knowledge when it’s more just a system where we made the rules and the categories everything is sorted into, again just fantasy. I felt myself slipping last night questioning how I know anything, whether the concepts I live by are real or imagined, whether I really am human or its just a trick of the way this matter is arranged…

And “everyone else” is just going on taking the illusion to be reality, the illusion of being human and the world we made up that only exists in our heads, and all these things that supposedly matter, and “relationships” between “others”…

I mean if concepts aren’t reality then none of it was ever real right? It’s kinda like Susan mentioning how there is no one and no one is acting or doing.

Or that stuff with Gary how things don’t make you feel because they have no emotional properties and it’s just “us doing it to ourselves”?

I dunno, maybe that’s just a human thing in the end, whatever that means…

70

Well, those are Tegmark’s own words.

71

Those are good questions. Thing is, we did all of them. We created this culture, these ethics, this society, long before we understood neurons and evolution like we do now. How did we do that?

72

We didn’t. Evolution did .
It is part of that pesky free will syndrome that allows us to ignore the laws of nature and become instrumental in our own demise.

73

This makes no sense. Evolution made culture but “free will syndrome” lets us ignore nature? I don’t think you understand the term.

74

I’m not really talking about tegmark. I’m meaning the guy I was talking to.

Well my notion was about stuff like concepts an things like that. How our understanding of the world is conceptual and whether that means we know anything at all or just living in a world of our own creation.

As for the self stuff I asked about it on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neuro/comments/1iv6235/comment/mef8749/

Though that last one was…kinda out there on that link.

And some answers like this:

“Yes, there is no self…just a community of cell groups who share what each experience and this becomes a quasi self based on self observation. But no, no one self as classically defined.”

75

Well, I’m not talking about any physical impairment, quite the contrary. It is our inability to control our “hoarding” instinct, combined with our ability to alter and affect our environment in a detrimental way.

This is allegorized in the bible with the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that caused humans to be able to alter the natural order and become removed from it.

76

Yeah but free will would imply some kinda self and more people I ask say that’s not a thing:

"There is no inherent ‘self,’ and research supports this. Like a group of cells working together, where each cell performs specific functions. On its own, a cell doesn’t exhibit self-awareness, but when cells group together, they coordinate and can perform more complex tasks, like tissue formation or organ development.

It may appear as if a ‘self’ is emerging, but this is not true self-awareness. There is no singular, central ‘self.’ What we perceive as coordinated behavior is a quasi-self, an emergent property arising from the interactions between cells. The ‘self’ is a concept we impose, while in reality, it’s a product of collective responses and emergent behavior. Its just chemicals reacting to responses ,period. If anyone doesnt come to that same conclusion they havent dug deep enough."

77

Deleted for wrong OP

78

My point is your free will doesn’t add up to tthe no self stuff, I mean you cite Anil Seth a lot who says the same .

79

No, the “best guess” is in regard to processing incoming sensory data.

OTOH, “free will” is about decision making and selecting choices from available options.

80

Again, you frequently references a dude who is arguing what I am.