My article, “On Will” released in version 2.5

I upgraded my article On Will to reflect new research – including the mention of cognitive dissonance and my latest definition of free will as “cause without reason”. There are more references added and several smaller corrections and enhancements.

Enjoy 🙂

random event?

This article is now hosted and updated on GitHub.

74 thoughts on “My article, “On Will” released in version 2.5

  1. Hello Rafael… good to see your smiling face!
    IS? that to me is ”free will” without any attachments: past -future-beliefs whys-reasons etc… on experience. 🙂

      1. Yes and no…. cause to me means different.. to cause is make something ”happen”, wanting something for some reason… but IS just on experience, I GOT IT!
        I can give you on example ..Thank you Rafael I love you for this cognition! ”IS” is a realization-cognition because it was not caused intentionally, it contains no earlier incidents, there is no space involved or time: no past or future and of course not on agreed upon consideration, never happened before and it is a experience.. totally unique experience…havent been altered evaluated etc..etc.. IT IS a NEW BORN STAR!
        🙂 love you I truly do!

          1. “Dear Elizabeth, your cogniton is wonderful, thanks for sharing it. This reminds me a lecture by J. Krishnamurti about the action with no past or future, did you know his work ?”

            Hello Rafael SN, Good day to you sir. In a sentence, can you give me an example of an “action with no past or future?” Be well, I enjoy your posts.

            1. “Chris t. Something you do just for the joy of doing it, this is an action with no past and no future.”

              Still not getting the lack of connection to the past and future.

            2. Chris t., when an artist creates a new reality, it is created firstly for his own joy and edification. If this is of the like for the rest of the world due to their connection with past customs or future expectancies is completely irrelevant for the creator.

            3. That’s a wonderfully intimate and sexy video Rafael SN. Thanks for sharing it.

              I’ll just say that I challenge the idea of an artistic creation with no “before” – with no ramping up of skill-sets, props, etc., and with no thought of “after” ramifications such as accolades or remuneration. Maybe now that I wrote that, you could think of an example that counters my challenge. To be clear, my challenge is confined to the notion of timelessness, un-primed creation.

            4. Chris T., The un-primed and timeless creation is just a matter of consideration for each one of us. You see what you want to see in the presence of any random event, there is not yet a pristine-ohmmeter or freewill-ohmmeter to measure such variables.

            5. “You see what you want to see in the presence of any random event, there is not yet a pristine-ohmmeter or freewill-ohmmeter to measure such variables.”

              Ah, I get it.

            1. what you have written is” But stars start as a big hot ball of gas” Your reality not mine and your reality is fine with me and will not affect how I see the Cosmos.

            2. “what you have written is” But stars start as a big hot ball of gas” Your reality not mine and your reality is fine with me and will not affect how I see the Cosmos.”

              If we shut our eyes, the moon is still there. This is a step deeper than is “what we believe.” Your opinions are your own and no harm done, but when you state beliefs for facts, you leave yourself open to challenge and mustn’t be butt-hurt when it happens.

            3. “It is you who made the statement about the stars not I.. it is not the fact? than why did you write it? the butt-hurt applies to you.”

              No, You wrote just above, “Elizabeth Hamre says: 2016-02-11 AT 10:27

              Yes and no…. cause to me means different.. to cause is make something ”happen”, wanting something for some reason… but IS just on experience, I GOT IT! I can give you on example ..Thank you Rafael I love you for this cognition! ”IS” is a realization-cognition because it was not caused intentionally, it contains no earlier incidents, there is no space involved or time: no past or future and of course not on agreed upon consideration, never happened before and it is a experience.. totally unique experience…havent been altered evaluated etc..etc.. IT IS a NEW BORN STAR! 🙂 love you I truly do!” This is in response to an unreasoned cause. Something from nothing. Stars are something and they do not come from nothing. They begin “life” as a star when they metamorphose from “big ball of hot gas” as it becomes so large that the gravity can ignite their nuclear fire.

            4. What I write about is beyond your reality.. understanding therefore I don’t see any reason to continue this communication. have a good day.

            5. Here is a well known name Mal Martin and Mel in person have shown me the night sky on a great telescope which was housed in his garage and but not only that I was able to barrow any of his books from his library. His wife Joan was a very good friend of mine. this was before they moved the south from Edmonds WA. If I recall correctly from the lessons Mel said stars become gas after….
              M51 | Images from Deep Space | Mel Martin

              http://www.azdeepskies.com/hyperion_images/m51.html

              This impressive galaxy was imaged on March 14-15, 2010. It was exposed for 5 hours, but not nearly enough to overcome the noise from our poor seeing this winter and … But Mel become famous for invention.. which you can find on the Internet
              Sorry If I given the impression being nasty to you. Be well.

            6. “””If we shut our eyes, the moon is still there. This is a step deeper than is “what we believe.” Your opinions are your own and no harm done, but when you state beliefs for facts, you leave yourself open to challenge and mustn’t be butt-hurt when it happens””
              I haven’t the clue what you are referring to.. I was communicating with Rafael.. than you butted in with the statement “But stars start as big hot ball of gas”’ I simply said they did not.. and before I knew you have become personal… ignoring the rules of the debate. it was you who made that statement about the stars not I. so don’t try to make me wrong for your ignorance.

  2. Rafael.. No I don’t..But I will listen to this video you were kind enough so send . Rafael, I haven’t studied anything at all since the courses I have taken in order to go OT7.. I have spent all my time… more like I dedicated all my time to have sessions. What I know by now are the results of sessions-cognitions. To me this is enough because the sessions given me the greatest adventure imaginable 🙂 after all how many can say that they seen the Universe and never had to get up from their easy chair?

  3. Regarding practical thinking regarding free will and Geir’s batshit definition.

    1. Our world is rational. (per Kurt Godel’s viewpoint)
    2. If free will is “cause without reason” then free will is batshit and the rational emerges from batshit by the declaration of this batshit that reason shall emerge.
    3. Free will cannot be proven by our rational world.

    So … we live in a world of rational rules, but we exist in a world of batshit.

    Okay. Got it. And, as usual, I’m not the first. This was carved in stone at the top of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City.

    “The soul has greater need of the ideal than of the real. It is by the real that we exist it is by the ideal that we live.”

    I used the Google power, and found out this is an altered quote from Victor Hugo. One word of difference, and WHAT a difference one word makes.

    THE FULL QUOTE: “The human soul has still greater need of the ideal than of the real. It is by the real that we exist, it is by the ideal that we live.”

    The omission of that word makes is such that Hugo’s name didn’t appear on the building after the quote.

    Still. It’s powerful in either version.

    1. The consistency of the universe cannot be proven from within it – because of gödel’s second incompleteness theorem: “For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.”

      Case in point: Given the definition of free will, “Cause without reason”, then free will is indistinguishable from pure randomity.

      1. “Case in point: Given the definition of free will, “Cause without reason”, then free will is indistinguishable from pure randomity.”

        I like how concise and precise this definition is. Given the indemonstrable fact of free will, or until it can be demonstrated as fact, possibly he definition should be modified to “a belief in the possibility of cause without reason.”

    2. “So … we live in a world of rational rules, but we exist in a world of batshit.”

      I’ve been trying to follow along through the week but haven’t been able to sit and type until tonight. This discussion has been fun because I feel the argument is getting down to its rudiments. I’ve been wanting to throw out the definition of batshit as irrational. Then I went to the dictionary and found that our language is confused (a bit.) I believe the earlier definition is mathematical and it is my favorite, “without ratio.” This is the batshit of which you speak. The adjective definition of “in accordance with reason or logic” is the confusion of which I speak. I’m just going to ignore the definition of “reason.”

      The rational rules of which you write can also be described as rational abstractions in the way that Geir uses illusions. I like better abstractions because they have a proactive flavor rather than the dupe of illusion.

      1. ” I’ve been wanting to throw out the definition of batshit as irrational. ”
        I wrote that poorly. I didn’t mean throw out the definition. I meant define batshit as “without ratio.” Something like that.

    3. “1. Our world is rational. (per Kurt Godel’s viewpoint)”

      Did Godel mean “without ratio” or “corresponding to reason and logic?” One of mankind’s greatest mathematicians, I cannot believe that he meant mathematically. His best known work shows otherwise. But if so, why would he have stated such a strong assumption at the tag end of his life? Maybe genius is domain specific and like any of us simply assumed, believed, and guessed at those parts of life to which he had not trained his laser intellect. I don’t really know. But I don’t agree the universe is rational. I think people are as rational as the universe gets and this is because of the pattern recognizing quality of how our brains work. We imagine straight lines and perfect circles. But the irratio of pi is a clue to make us again review and wonder at our abstraction of any possibility of there being an even ratio in the universe. Hence batshit.

  4. 🙂 I Like: “The soul has greater need of the ideal than of the real. It is by the real that we exist it is by the ideal that we live.”
    Elizabeth: we live in the universe which are our beliefs and there is no other universe..

  5. Because we keep referring to Kurt Godel’s philosophy aside from his maths, I thought I would print it here in case we want to refer to any part of it:
    world. Here are his 14 points:

    1. The world is rational.
    2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
    3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
    4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
    5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
    6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
    7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
    8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
    9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
    10. Materialism is false.
    11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
    12. Concepts have an objective existence.
    13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
    14. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.

    I believe that Godel was jotting down his musings and did not mean for these notes found after his passing to spread. These are not proofs but more a gathering of his thoughts and I am happy feel privileged to have the opportunity to view these private thoughts of his.

  6. The argument for free will contains fallacies of relevance. One example is, “There is no accountability for actions if there is no will behind them.” Another is, “There is no one to be held responsible if the person had no choice.” I think this in interesting because it assumes an end. As the American president Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” But is there indeed stopping? There may be as an abstract but is there really stopping in fact? Is there an example of “stopping” in the universe as we know it? We spend time analyzing “beginnings” and theistically assert there are beginnings, yet are these other than abstracts when in fact there are processes at work?

    To me, accountability and responsibility can be viewed as a bundle of obligations such as those assigned to a role or a job. A computer, even its “uninterruptable power supply” (UPS) can have assigned responsibility. We can say that the Sun is responsible for life on Earth. Does this mean that the Sun has will?

    1. Egyptians thought the sun was a God. Consider it true for a moment, ain’t it beautiful?
      I could live with that batshit. I guess it does not become terrifying as long as you can mantain a position of love and awe (wonder, admiration).

      1. “Egyptians thought the sun was a God. Consider it true for a moment, ain’t it beautiful?”

        It is. I like sun worship. As a belief, it makes a lot of sense.

          1. Yup. The fun of it depends for me on knowing the difference between a belief and a fact. I see both effective and imaginary knowledge all around and within me. I like KG’s “rising batshit” as opposed to “fallen gods.” It is simple and I think maybe not pretty but elegant.

      2. “I could live with that batshit. I guess it does not become terrifying as long as you can maintain a position of love and awe (wonder, admiration).”

        Nothing in determinism needs diminish this. What do you suppose we want to be free from? The arguments toward responsibility and accountability in favor of free will are freedom limiting.

          1. “Yes indeed, we accept all freedom limitations to be part of a game. There is pleasure to be had.”

            Yes. How we experience seems to be something some of us can do something about. No two of us are identical and no two of us have the same abilities. Very few have experienced the wonder of an elegant math equation. Some live in a hell of drugs and insanity from which they can find no rest. In between, the rest of us reside with varying degrees of ability to enjoy pleasure as life on earth “rises from batshit.” The power of positive thinking is a constructive vector and tactic for living but it is no where near going to bring about a DNA change in any one individual within a single lifetime. After 10,000 to 50,000 years from now we can revisit this conversation and see how Man is developing, if he still exists. I will be happy if Man succeeds and applaud if he does, but I’m not willing to pretend anymore. That’s not a part of my game plan.

            1. “That seems to be our basic and permanent degree of freedom : How we manage to experience life.”

              Yes! I see no other important and intrinsic free will, if that. I wonder at consciousness and will. I wonder what new understandings the future will bring?

    2. It follows quite simply from Aristotle’s definitions. Definitions that forms the ground for our system of law. Aristotle’s discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait — it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.

      1. “According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait — it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.”

        I’m currently reading Michael Gazzaniga’s book, WHO’S IN CHARGE? I can’t link you to the book as it doesn’t seem to be on line, however, THIS LINK is to a short review which nicely gives the flavor of the book. Gazzaniga is a neuro-scientist who addresses these questions of will and personal identity from a neurological point of view. His work is fascinating me. (Video Click Here) Using a “game” and two groups, one was briefed with a positive and glowing video of the wonders of free will, then the second group was given a bleak “everybody for himself” video, then both groups were given permission to cheat. It’s explained better in the video. Unremarkably, the group prepped with free will did not cheat, while the group prepped with determinism cheated like crazy. The thing that I am really taking away from this study is that the paradoxical quality of belief in free will is false and second that we can and are understanding the “I” of ourselves from a scientific stance rather than theism spectrum.

  7. PIMP SLAPPING PASCAL’S WAGER:

    PASCAL’S WAGER (ORIGINAL)

    1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

    2. A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.

    3. You must wager (it is not optional).

    4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

    5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

    6. But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.

    ****

    BATSHIT’S WAGER

    KATAGEEK’S WAGER

    1. A free-well, self-creating being IS, or a free-will, self-creating being IS NOT. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

    2. A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.

    3. You must wager (it is not optional).

    4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that a free-will self-creating being is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain such a state, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

    5. Wager, then, without hesitation that YOU EXIST. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

    6. But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.

    1. “3. You must wager (it is not optional).”

      Excellent work again KG. I love how the theist and the batshit theists frame this thought stopping debate! Pascal was full of but should have been full of batshit.

        1. “What was Pascal full of Chris? There is a word missing.”

          Shit (false assumptions). I guess my Freudian slip was I must not have wanted to print that..! Pascal’s wager works within the framework of theism. For the larger view of an atheist, his premises seem excessively stupid to me.

    2. As long as we commit ourselves to clarity of observation, we should not consent to any certainty. But wagers are always acceptable😃

      1. Check out this paradox on Numberphile at the 6:15 mark. It isn’t directly transferable to our situation here.

        It’s a game where human nature doesn’t actually align with people making the best choice. And this is the same thing Pascal is point toward.

        1. I don’t believe in the theism of paradox. The Hilbert Hotel is a ridiculous premise, something child-like. Gabriel’s Trumpet, likewise contains no feel for fractal compression. Dartboard? Casino? Casinos by definition work with probability on their side. This is just a word game as are all these paradoxical “problems” with the language twisted to present “unsolvable” problems.

          Risk aversion is the tendency for an investor who, when faced with two investments with a similar expected return (but different risks), will prefer the one with the lower risk.

          “Hope” is like an abstract plug-in which we use to balance negative risk, making equations of this sort come out on the side we want them to. Without hope, people won’t “risk.”

          Pascal’s Wager, is a cobbled bundle of nonsense. It’s first false premise is that belief in God is a ticket to heaven. For my “wager,” I bet Pascal is the dupe and shill of 17th century politics. “Faith” in a “never seen” God is after all is the actual context of Christian salvation, “not believing in God.” All the spirit world of fallen angels and demons “believes” in God and yet are doomed. So the criteria of believing is irrelevent. One must know God by faith therefore my strong “belief” in the political motive of the whole cloth of religion.

          This is why ministers are called “men of the cloth.” (just joking, . . not really!)

          1. Yeah, I get that. The point is IF one is going to use Pascal’s wager, why not bet on yourself?

            Just like “You can’t prove a negative.” You can’t prove there is not an invisible Unicorn in my living room.

            So, if someone is going to use that as an argument, like with the phrase: “You can’t prove Jesus ISN’T the resurrected Lord!”, then why not use such reasoning for your own betterment?

            EXAMPLE:

            ME: “You can’t prove I’m NOT God of the Universe!”

            JESUS MAN: “Yes, I can. Here, I’ll beat you up and show you are not all powerful.”

            ME: “Ahh. BUT you see, In this Universe I created, I chose to limit my powers in this form. You cannot prove I didn’t create myself weaker for this purpose!”

            JESUS PERSON: “You’re voting for Trump aren’t you? He thinks he’s God as well.
            ***

            Because if we are going to use bad arguments, we might as well get the best out of them.

            I’m a mathematical realist so we disagree on paradoxes. Nothing new to you I’m sure.

            1. “Because if we are going to use bad arguments, we might as well get the best out of them.”

              Yes, yes I get your point and your humor. I think its funny too.

              Maybe my point is that faith is good when hyperventilating just before holding our breath and swimming out of an underwater cave which is filling with water. Faith is not good when used destructively or for thought-stopping. So in my context, I don’t think that more theism is necessary, or helpful, or moving our people or the planet forward.

              Maybe my point is that .999___, does not “equal” 1. I know the “mathematical” proof for making this so, but to me, this is a twisted word game only and disgraces the eloquence of maths language by corrupting it with twisted expressions and ignores the beauty of the irrational .999 – – – . For me, it is important to preserve the irrational concept as greater in importance to understanding the universe than the even ratio of 1.

              But then like Pascal or like batshit, I’m full of shit, too. Who cares, right? LOL

            2. hahahaha! That’s hilarious! (Consider the twisted context) While we can waste our time arguing paradoxes, we could be using the time to use paradoxes to ferret illogical nonsense. Soldiers in combat are cannon fodder and there are plenty of rules for keeping them that way, as you write, “bad arguments.”

            3. Catch-22 … The End of “The Tempest”

              They are doing Shakespeare Solos to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Bard.

            4. “I’m a mathematical realist so we disagree on paradoxes. Nothing new to you I’m sure.”

              Viktor Frankl believed that people are primarily driven by a “striving to find meaning in one’s life,” and that it is this sense of meaning that enables people to overcome painful experiences. I applied the commutative law of mathematics to that sentence by changing the order of words around. This probably doesn’t apply directly, but I did it. I get Frankl’s original meaning and his frame of reference, but I can see another way, change the words around thusly:

              Frankl believed that people who overcome painful experiences are primarily driven by a “striving to find meaning in one’s life,” and that it is this hard wired drive that enables people give meaning to their painful experiences. Do you suppose that my sentence can be as valid as Frankl’s?

  8. Certainty can be a perfect trap when it makes you feel you are touching heaven. Fulfills a basic purpose, a basic need. One can spend lifetimes in it.

    1. Yup.

      Certainty is an experience we can get SEPARATE from a belief in “The Truth.”

      IMHO, the best certainty is just being fucking present, right and wrong.

  9. When a person decides for themselves what they will do, according to their own purpose and their own reasons, we call the deliberation process free will. This distinguishes it from cases where a person is coerced, or unduly influenced (e.g. hypnosis, brain tumor, authoritative command), to act against their will. In those cases their will is subject to the will of another, or to the undue influence, and it is not free.

    Our choices are never uncaused. If you ask someone why they chose A instead of B, they will gladly give you their reasons. For an intelligent species, reasons are causes. So a choice that we make of our own free will is also the result of reliable cause and effect. Our choice is, at least in theory, predictable by anyone with sufficient knowledge of how we think and feel.

    Both facts, autonomy and predictability, are simultaneously true. There is no conflict between (a) the fact that it was you and (b) the fact that you were behaving predictably.

    In the same fashion, there is no conflict between determinism and free will. In fact, without reliable cause and effect (determinism) we could never reliably cause any effect, that is, we’d have no freedom to do anything at all. Every freedom we have requires a deterministic universe. So free will is not about anything being “indeterministic”. Nor is it about anything being “random”.

    Free will is about who or what is the meaningful and relevant cause of an event. The final “prior cause” of every deliberate action is the process of deliberation that took place in the brain of the person who was making the choice. Because a person chooses what best suits his or her own purpose and reasons, the choice is both deterministic and authentically their own.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s