The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by BRUTE » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:11 pm

jacob wrote:Danish is one of the most vowel intensive languages in the world. You could cut out all consonants and still be 80% comprehended [by other Danes].
a Swede once told brute that "Danish is so hard, their children don't start talking until they're 4 years old" or something like that. he might also have implied that Danish is "dumb". what's with the Swedes and the Danes? some kind of rivalry?
jacob wrote:BTW this observation has lots of bearing on this thread: http://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com ... f=3&t=8041 ... do you think Sapir-Whorf applies here?! I'm thinking it does!
hm, brute isn't sure if this is the exact level on which Sapir-Whorf applies? maybe Sapir-Whorf is just a special case of "input filtering", and mental models or lenses or ways of thinking are other cases? brute thinks "wealthy" and "middle class" humans generally use the same vocabulary for the same things, don't they? but it's certainly a similar effect.
jacob wrote:Oh yeah ... if you really want to blow your mind, consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
holy shit. 2000 BC? that's recent. it would make some sense. maybe that's why individualism is still such a rare phenomenon, and most humans are looking to obey some kind of idea or master. it's just a new development.

User avatar
vezkor
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by vezkor » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:53 pm

What do random number generators and the human mind have in common?

They are unable to select values they do not know exist. Truly random number generators are as impossible as perpetual motion devices in reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation
Ego wrote: I believe I am the result of genes plus experience. If I am the result of those two inputs then any decision I make is based on them. When offered the opportunity to pick any city in the world, I would be unable to choose one that I did not know existed and I would be unable to understand why my sub-conscious mind spewed up the one it did.
This gave me chills. I believe I'll take the next few months and re-think everything I thought I knew about why I think I did the things I did.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by Riggerjack » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:02 pm

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/05/bo ... ncertainty

I wasn't sure about where to post this. I chose here, because the PP theory and control effects seem relevant to the part of this conversation tied to decision making, and the odd timing of decisions to actions. The odd notion that a human operator is a display function of a switch, rather than an operator of said switch is what happens when you have counterintuitive data, and a theory that fits it, poorly. Whereas PP is pretty intuitive (probably more so in programmers and intuitives) and not only fits the data, but then goes further in explaining neurological outliers, like autistic and schizophrenic people.

As is his norm, Scott Alexander makes no attempt to break this down into a 500 word businessinsider.com article. Rather, he sums up an in depth book in a few pages, with examples that work to demonstrate the principal in action. But this isn't a one minute link. If you have the interest, and ten minutes, click the link. If you have ten more minutes, here's his follow up:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/06/pr ... l-control/

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 9232
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by jacob » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:04 pm

vezkor wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:53 pm
What do random number generators and the human mind have in common?

They are unable to select values they do not know exist. Truly random number generators are as impossible as perpetual motion devices in reality.
Therefore nobody can have/experience any original thought(?!)

Rare exceptions, which for same reason are always found outside the humanities departments, beg to differ. I'm not going to make the case though.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 3016
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:36 am

Eh, humans have novel thoughts all the time, and what we mean by original thought is something like "novel thought of great value or utility from which many other valuable ideas were derived" Descartes got our panties all wadded up with the notion of quantification. However, quantification is absolutely reliant on the qualities of "discrete" or "boundaried" which are somewhat arbitrary and dependent on meaning assigned to sensory inputs processed as feelings. How many apple (or Apple? )How many ocean? How many freedom?

So, I can easily plan a meal (defined or boundaried as one unit of various foods served at same juncture in time) that would very likely be completely novel within the scope of all previous human experience. For instance, I might have a Crunchy Eel, Yellow Perch,Crab Roll, a Johnson-Brandywine heirloom cross tomato sprinkled with the finest imported sea salt, 2 gingersnap cookies manufactured in Canada filled with Pinconning super-sharp cheese spread, and a fresh-brewed mug of hand gathered and dried bearberry leaf tea. However, it is also highly unlikely that this novel construction of mine will prove to be a node of great future utility, unlike the General Theory of Relativity, the "Castle of Otranto", or the striking of flint.

OTCW
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:55 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by OTCW » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:30 am

Incognito, the Secret Life of the Brain has some very interesting reading on the subject of free will. Fascinating read.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

In the matter of empirical life, human procedure is identical to all animals

Post by fiby41 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:02 am

Dragline wrote:
Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:04 am
"Theory of mind" compels us to project agency or thought patterns on other humans, animals and even objects that we see acting in a certain way or even appearing a certain way. It is almost uniquely a human trait -- whether animals possess it at all, and to what extent, is still a matter of great conflict and controversy among experimenters.
The empirical world is a matter of common experience that we share with all living beings:

For animals, when they hear a sound they believe is dangerous, they turn away, and move towards that which seems safe, and they turn towards someone holding green grass, and shy away from one holding a stick, thinking that they will be beaten.

In the same way wise humans are repelled by strong, riotous people with menacing looks and swords drawn, but drawn to those opposite in nature.

In this way, the behaviour of humans and animals in the empirical sphere of subjects and objects is identical.

Its known that animals use their means of perception without the benefit of discrimination. From the empirical standpoint, the means of perception employed by the wise and animals are identical.

The instinctive behaviour of humans in the empirical field is due to a series of misconceptions due to a non-discrimination between the Self (Atman) and the Other, and that humans share this behaviour with the rest of the animal kingdom. Now humans, apart from their faculty of discrimination, must be different somehow?

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

The Riddle of Fate and Free-Will Solved

Post by fiby41 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:50 am

The Riddle of Fate and Free-Will Solved

Warnings: 1 Wall of text and 2 religious discourse.

H.H. C Bharati : I hope you are pursuing your studies in the Vedanta as usual?
Disciple : Though not regularly, I do make some occasional study.

H.H. : In the course of your studies, you may have come across many doubts.
D. : Yes, one doubt repeatedly comes up to my mind.

H.H. : What is it?
D. : It is the problem of the eternal conflict between fate and free-will.
What are their respective provinces and how can the conflict be avoided?

H.H. : If presented in the way you have done it, the problem would baffle even the highest of thinkers.
D. : What is wrong with my presentation? I only stated the problem and did not even explain how I find it to be a difficult one.

H.H. : Your difficulty arises in the very statement of the problem.
D. : How?

H.H. : A conflict arises only if there are two things. There can be no conflict if there is only one thing.
D. : But here there are two things, fate and free-will.

H.H. : Exacly. It is this assumption of yours that is responsible for your problem.
D. : It is not my assumption at all. How can I ignore the fact that the two things exist as independent factors, whether I grant their existence or not?

H.H. : That is where you are wrong again.
D. : How?

H.H. : As a follower of our Sanatana Dharma, you must know that fate is nothing extraneous to yourself, but only the sum total of the results of your past actions.
As God is but the dispenser of the fruits of actions, fate, representing those fruits, is not his creation but only yours. Free-will is what you exercise when you act now.
D. : Still I do not see how they are not two distinct things.

H.H. : Have it this way. Fate is past karma; free-will is present karma.
Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one.
D. : But the difference in time is a vital difference which we cannot possibly overlook.

H.H. : I do not want you to overlook it, but only to study it more deeply.
The present is before you and, by the exercise of free-will, you can attempt to shape it.
The past is past and is therefore beyond your vision and is rightly called adrishta, the unseen. You cannot reasonably attempt to find out the relative strength of two things unless both of them are before you. But, by our very definition, free-will, the present karma, alone is before you and fate, the past karma, is invisible.
Even if you see two wrestlers right in front of you, you cannot decide about their relative strength.
For, one may have weight, the other agility;
one muscles and the other tenacity;
one the benefit of practice and the other coolness of judgment and so on.
We can go on building arguments on arguments to conclude that a particular wrestler will be the winner.
But experience shows that each of these qualifications may fail at any time or may prove to be a disqualification. The only practical method of determining their relative strength will be to make them wrestle.
While this is so, how do you expect to find by means of arguments a solution to the problem of the relative value of fate and free-will when the former by its very nature is unseen!
D. : Is there no way then of solving this problem?

H.H. : There is this way. The wrestlers must fight with each other and prove which of them is the stronger.
D. : In other words, the problem of conflict will get solved only at the end of the conflict. But at that time the problem will have ceased to have any practical significance.

H.H. : Not only so, it will cease to exist.
D. : That is, before the conflict begins, the problem is incapable of solution;
and, after the conflict ends, it is no longer necessary to find a solution.

H.H. : Just so. In either case, it is profitless to embark on the inquiry as to the relative strength of fate and free-will.

A Guide

D. : Does Yor Holiness then mean to say that we must resign ourselves to
fate?
H.H. : Certainly not. On the other hand, you must devote yourself to free-
will.
D. : How can that be?
H.H. : Fate, as I told you, is the resultant of the past exercise of your
free-will.
By exercising your free-will in the past, you brought on
the resultant fate.
By exercising your free-will in the present, I want you to wipe
out your past record if it hurts you
, or to add to it if you find it
enjoyable.
In any case. whether for acquiring more happiness or for reducing
misery. you have to exercise your free-will in the present.
D. : But the exercise of free-will however well-directed, very often
fails to secure the desired result, as fate steps in and nullifies
the action of free-will.
H.H. : You are again ignoring our definition of fate. It is not an
extraneous and a new thing which steps in to nullify your free-will.
On the other hand, it is already in yourself.
D. : It may be so, but its existence is felt only when it comes into
conflict with free-will. How can we possibly wipe out the past
record when we do not know nor have the means of knowing what it is?
H.H. : Except to a very few highly advanced souls, the past certainly
remains unknown. But even our ignorance of it is very often an
advantage to us.
For, if we happen to know all the results we have accumulated
by our actions in this and our past lives, we will be so much
shocked as to give up in despair any attempt to overcome or mitigate
them. Even in this life, forgetfulnes is a boon which the merciful
God has been pleased to bestow on us, so that we may not be burdened
at any moment with a recollection of all that has happened in the
past.
Similarly, the divine spark in us is ever bright with hope and
makes it possible for us to confidently exercise our free-will. It
is not for us to belittle the significance of these two boons--
forgetfulness of the past and hope for the future.
D. : Our ignorance of the past may be useful in not deterring the exercise
of the free-will, and hope may stimulate that exercise. All the
same, it cannot be denied that fate very often does present a
formidable obstacle in the way of such exercise.
H.H. : It is not quite correct to say that fate places obstacles in the way
of free-will. On the other hand, by seeming to oppose our efforts,
it tells us what is the extent of free-will that is necessary now to
bear fruit.
Ordinarily for the purpose of securing a single benefit, a
particular activity is prescribed; but we do not know how
intensively or how repeatedly that activity has to be pursued or
pesisted in.
If we do not succed at the very first attempt, we can easily
deduce that in the past we have exercised our free-will just in the
opposite direction, that the resultant of that past activity has
first to be eliminated and that our present effort must be
proportionate to that past activity.
Thus, the obstacle which fate seems to offer is just the gauge
by which we have to guide our present activities.
H.H. : The obstacle is seen only after the exercise of our free-will; how
can that help us to guide our activities at the start?
H.H. : It need not guide us at the start. At the start, you must not be
obsessed at all with the idea that there will be any obstacle in
your way.
Start with boundless hope and with the rpesumption that there
is nothing in the way of your exercising the free-will.
If you do not succeed, tell yourself then that there has been
in the past a counter-influence brought on by yourself by exercising
your free-will in the other direction and, therefore, you must now
exercise your free-will with re-doubled vogor and persistence to
achieve your object.
Tell yourself that, inasmuch as the seeming obstacle is of your
own making, it is certainly within your competence to overcome it.
If you do not succeed even after this renewed effort, there can
be absolutely no justification for despair, for fate being but a
creature of your free-will can never be stronger than your free-will.
Your failure only means that your present exercise of free-will
is not sufficient to counteract the result of the past exercise of
it.
In other words, there is no question of a relative proportion
between fate and free-will as distinct factors in life. The relative
proportion is only as between the intensity of our past action and
the intensity of our present action.
D. : But even so, the relative intensity can be realised only at the end
of our present effort in a particular direction.
H.H. : It is always so in the case of everything which is adrishta or
unseen. Take, for example, a nail driven into a wooden pillar. When
you see it for the first time, you actually see, say, an inch of it
projecting out of the pillar. The rest of it has gone into the wood
and you cannot now see what exact length of the nail is imbedded in
the wood. That length, therefore, is unseen or adrishta, so far as
you are concerned. Beautifully varnished as the pillar is, you do
not know what is the composition of the wood in which the nail is
driven. That also is unseen or adrishta.
Now, suppose you want to pull that nail out, can you tell me
how many pulls will be necessary and how powerful each pull has to
be?
D. : How can I? The number and the intensity of the pulls will depend
upon the length which has gone into the wood.
H.H. : Certainly so. And the length which has gone into the wood is not
arbitrary, but depended upon the number of strokes which drove it in
and the intensity of each of such strokes and the resistance which
the wood offered to them.
D. : It is so.
H.H. : The number and intensity of the pulls needed to take out the nail
depend therefore upon the number and intensity of the strokes which
drove it in.
D. : Yes.
H.H. : But the strokes that drove in the nail are now unseen and unseeable.
They relate to the past and are adrishta.
D. : Yes.
H.H. : Do we stop from pulling out the nail simply because we happen to be
ignorant of the length of the nail in the wood or of the number and
intensity of the strokes which drove it in? Or, do we persist in
pulling it out by increasing our effort?
D. : Certainly, as practical men we adopt the latter course.
H.H. : Adopt the same course in every effort of yours. Exert yourself as
much as you can. Your will must succeed in the end.

Function of Shastras:

D. : But there certainly are many things which are impossible to attain
even after the utmost exertion.

H.H. : There you are mistaken. There is nothing which is really
unattainable. A thing, however, may be unattainable to us at the
particular stage at which we are, or with the qualifications that we
possess.
The attainability or otherwise of a particular thing is thus
not an absolute characteristic of that thing but is relative and
proportionate to our capacity to attain it.

D. : The success or failure of an effort can be known definitely only at
the end. How are we then to know beforehand whether with our
present capacity we may or may not exert ourselves to attain a
particular object, and whether it is the right kind of exertion for
the attainment of that object?

H.H. : Your question is certainly a pertinent one. The whole aim of our
Dharma Shastras is to give a detailed answer to your question.
Religion does not fetter man's free-will. It leaves him quite
free to act, but tells him at the same time what is good for him and
what is not.
The resposibility is entirely and solely his. He cannot escape it by
blaming fate, for fate is of his own making, nor by blaming God, for
he is but the dispenser of fruits in accordance with the merits of
actions. You are the master of your own destiny. It is for you to
make it, to better it or to mar it. This is your privilege. This is
your responsibility.

D. : I quite realise this. But often it so happens that I am not really
master of myself. I know, for instance, quite well that a particular
act is wrong; at the same time, I feel impelled to do it. Similarly,
I know that another act is right; at the same time, however, I feel
powerless to do it. It seems that there is some power which is able
to control or defy my free-will. So long as that power is potent,
how can I be called the master of my own destiny? Whatis that power
but fate?

H.H. : You are evidently confusing together two distinct things. Fate is a
thing quite different from the other one which you call a power.
Suppose you handle an instrument for the first time. You will do it
very clumsily and with great effort.
The next time, however, you use it, you will do so less
clumsily and with less effort. With repeated uses, you will have
learnt to use it easily and without any effort. That is, the facility
and ease with which you use a particular thing increase with the
number of times you use it.
The first time a man steals, he does so with great effort and
much fear; the next time both his effort and fear are much less. As
opportunities increase, stealing will become a normal habit with him
and will require no effort at all. This habit will generate in him a
tendency to steal even when there is no necessity to steal. It is
this tendency which goes by the name vasana. The power which makes
you act as if against your will is only the vasana which itself is of
your own making. This is not fate.
The punishment or reward, in the shape of pain or pleasure,
which is the inevitable consequence of an act, good or bad, is alone
the province of fate or destiny.
The vasana which the doing of an act leaves behind in the mind
in the shape of a taste, a greater facility or a greater tendency for
doing the same act once again, is quite a different thing. It may be
that the punishment or the reward of the past act is, in ordinary
circumstances, unavoidable, if there is no counter-effort; but the
vasana can be easily handled if only we exercise our free-will
correctly.

D. : But the number of vasanas or tendencies that rule our hearts are
endless. How can we possibly control them?
H.H. : The essential nature of a vasana is to seek expression in outward
acts. This characteristic is common to all vasanas, good and bad.
The stream of vasanas, the vasana sarit, as it is called, has two
currents, the good and the bad.
If you try to dam up the entire stream, there mey be danger.
The Shastras, therefore, do not ask you to attempt that. On the
other hand, they ask you to submit yourself to be led by the good
vasana current and to resist being led away by the bad vasana
current.
When you know that a particular vasana is rising up in your
mind, you cannot possibly say that you are at its mercy. You have
your wits about you and the responsibility of deciding whether you
will encourage it or not is entirely yours.
The Shastras ennciate in detail what vasanas are good and
have to be encouraged and what vasanas are bad and have to be
overcome.

When, by dint of practice, you have made all your vasanas
good and practically eliminated the charge of any bad vasanas
leading you astray, the Shastras take upon themselves the function
of teaching you how to free your free-will even from the need of
being led by good vasanas.
You will gradually be led on to a stage when your free-will
be entirely free from any sort of coloring due to any vasanas.
At that stage, your mind will be pure as crystal and all
motive for particular action will cease to be. Freedom from the
results of particular actions is an inevitable consequence. Both
fate and vasana disappear. There is freedom for ever more and that
freedom is called Moksha.


(A dialogue between His Holiness Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswami and a Disciple):
[His Holiness was the Sringeri Mathadhipati 1912-1954.]

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by BRUTE » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:32 pm

is there a tl;dr?

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by fiby41 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:52 am

I've put some lines in bold for the skimmers.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2714
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by BRUTE » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:48 pm

brute does not understand after reading the bold lines

User avatar
Smashter
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:05 am
Location: NYC

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by Smashter » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:43 am

Those Slate Star Codex articles were fascinating. I absolutely need to re-read them and learn more about that topic, but my initial reaction is that the predictive processing model makes me less likely to believe in free will. It seems like one small factor can set off a cascade of bad predictions about the world, which could have devastating and long lasting consequences. If that small factor was a lack of a particular neurotransmitter at age 2, due to circumstances you had no control over, then damn. How much free will is there in that? Though I guess I'm getting into the weeds of the whole "genes vs. environment" discussion. Maybe free will only kicks in during adulthood, and it's limited based on your earliest experiences?

To be clear, I still believe in free will. Or, as Mulder says, "I want to believe." :)

@Riggerjack, can you be more explicit on how the articles influenced your thinking on the matter of free will?

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by fiby41 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:34 am

brute, I find myself unable to paraphrase without sounding as if I'm proselytising.

enigmaT120
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by enigmaT120 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:09 pm

I liked those quotes, fiby41.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

Post by Riggerjack » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:50 pm

@Riggerjack, can you be more explicit on how the articles influenced your thinking on the matter of free will?
Not really. I find myself hopelessly outclassed in this thread. I should explain.

Determinism was being thrown out in other threads around here. And, since I didn't know anything about it, I looked it up, and noticed that the adherents here seemed to align politically, and we're mostly younger than I. So at one point I challenged BRUTE to start a thread on the subject.

Because what I thought this thread would be about was more along the line of determinism undermining will, willpower, agency, responsibility, etc. That was the way I had seen it go in forums when looking up determinism.

Instead, I seem to be floundering in a religious discussion. And I mean religious, because this seems to be people who have faith in a scientifical model attacking some spiritual concept of free will being somehow outside of physics.

Since I am truly agnostic, (by that I mean I suspect atheists are right, but acknowledge that there is no evidence on either side. I am neither religious, nor anti-religious.) So I have no skin in this game. I linked the SSC post because this is where we had the most displayed interest in the workings of the brain.

Post Reply