Free will ~ A product of imagination

[Angelus]

1. The act of imagination (not its content) is a function of the brain.
2. The brain is composed of matter, and subject to the laws of physics.

a. The act of imagination is subject to the laws of physics.

The content of your imagination is immaterial. It doesn't matter that you can imagine a world that doesn't adhere to actual physical existence. It simply matters that the only way you can do so is if physical forces inside you brain align in such a way that that happens.

There is a blog here that goes more in-depth. http://theplayfulatheist.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/is-the-universe-predictable/

A small quote:

Having free will does not mean that we are not controlled by the laws of nature and causation. It does not mean that at any given moment we can decide to do something completely against our natures. Free will is the recognition that different people, at different times, will react differently to relatively similar circumstances. This is not despite causation, it is the pinnacle of it. Every photon of light, every vibration on our eardrum, every touch against our skin, has sent a signal into our brain that has shaped it and its network of synapses, so that at every moment we may do, think, or say something that we might never have even predicted we’d do ourselves.

 

[Quantum Quack]

1. The act of imagination (not its content) is a function of the brain.
2. The brain is composed of matter, and subject to the laws of physics.

a. The act of imagination is subject to the laws of physics.

The content of your imagination is immaterial. It doesn't matter that you can imagine a world that doesn't adhere to actual physical existence. It simply matters that the only way you can do so is if physical forces inside you brain align in such a way that that happens.

There is a blog here that goes more in-depth. http://theplayfulatheist.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/is-the-universe-predictable/

A small quote:

Having free will does not mean that we are not controlled by the laws of nature and causation. It does not mean that at any given moment we can decide to do something completely against our natures. Free will is the recognition that different people, at different times, will react differently to relatively similar circumstances. This is not despite causation, it is the pinnacle of it. Every photon of light, every vibration on our eardrum, every touch against our skin, has sent a signal into our brain that has shaped it and its network of synapses, so that at every moment we may do, think, or say something that we might never have even predicted we’d do ourselves.

Welcome to the thread!

1. It does matter very much that you can have freedom of imagination as it is with this imagination that choices and decisions are made...
2. It does matter very much that that product of the imagination is immaterial therefore unreal as Baldeee has put it, as this allows the fictional creation of choices and decisions.
3. Being unreal or fictional is not the same as being an illusion of perception, an illusion of physics, or a mere appearance of freewill. It is just as we know it to be, a fiction, a fantasy waiting to be enacted.
4. The degree of oppression by beliefs in the laws of physics may influence that freedom but that is a matter of how much you choose to conform with them.
5. There is no obligation for the product of the imagination to conform to what is believed by that individual imaginer, to be the laws of physics.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Because the very definition of fiction starts with the notion of it being "unreal".
To quote wiki: "Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical -..."
Note the part about "not real"?

In terms of theories and th ilk, reality is what happens, what is manifest.
The fiction is what people think caused it, or other ideas surrounding the reality.
Hopefully such scientific fiction will not seek to defy the laws of physics within their explanations.
And it may even get accepted as being the best descriptor of reality that we have (and become considered a law).
But the fiction is not itself real.
It may merely (but not necessarily) attempt to describe reality.

As such, you are merely saying that fiction need not adhere to the laws of physics.
Trivial and irrelevant.

I am sorry but this makes little sense to me...

As such, you are merely saying that fiction need not adhere to the laws of physics.

at least we can agree on this bit. and the product of the imagination is fiction... therefore choices and decisions are fictional. Easy!

 

[Baldeee]

I am sorry but this makes little sense to me...

very little does, it seems.
What are you struggling with, exactly?

 

[Quantum Quack]

very little does, it seems.
What are you struggling with, exactly?

hey!

You are the one that has just spent about 500+ words and quite a few posts to arrive at what appears to you to be trivial and irrelevant, not I..

so go figure..

the product of the imagination is fictional...like I proposed in the OP.

What is it that requires you to make so many post to arrive at the same conclusion when it is indeed obvious to begin with?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What I can not understand is how, after thousands of years of philosophical discussion and debate, this seemingly trivial point that choices and decisions are fictional products of the imagination finally gets an airing at sciforums

That so many incredibly intelligent people have somehow missed the most obvious...this I find most bewildering...

1. Googling shows very little discussion in this approach to freewill and illusion.
2. Yet the logic/ratio-nal is staggeringly straightforward.
3. Even if this thread fails to conclude to anything it would seem that it is one of a very few "published" discussions on the nature of freewill being a product of imagination ~fiction. Ever!
4. So sciforums gets the Kudos for an intelligent community...[ chuckle ]

Google words >>freewill imagination<< and you will find this thread already indexed. Sheesh! Google doesn't mess around... so quick!

 

[Angelus]

The fact that the content of you imagination does not conform to reality doesn't mean that the act of imagining itself is not bound by the laws of nature. If you imagine something, it is because your brain is in the state of imagining that thing. It got there because it grew according to your dna and physical law, was then fed by signals from your sensory inputs that made it shape itself according to physical law, and now is producing an imagining in your consciousness according to physical law. If you imagine something, it is because experience, environment, and physical law has worked to make it so. You cannot imagine anything that nature has not given you to imagine. When you make a choice, it is the choice that your brain, at that moment, with those sensory inputs, would always have made. You cannot choose that which is against your nature to choose.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The fact that the content of you imagination does not conform to reality doesn't mean that the act of imagining itself is not bound by the laws of nature. If you imagine something, it is because your brain is in the state of imagining that thing. It got there because it grew according to your dna and physical law, was then fed by signals from your sensory inputs that made it shape itself according to physical law, and now is producing an imagining in your consciousness according to physical law. If you imagine something, it is because experience, environment, and physical law has worked to make it so. You cannot imagine anything that nature has not given you to imagine. When you make a choice, it is the choice that your brain, at that moment, with those sensory inputs, would always have made. You cannot choose that which is against your nature to choose.

I understand you point...
However there is ample evidence historically and currently that indicates that the product of the imagination is pure fiction and not dependent on any laws or nature other than the ones we choose to be inspired by.
How does the above comment rest with you?
Do you consider the product of the imagination to be fictional?
The other thing is that people have proved constantly that they are able to transcend their lived experience, as a "mortal" as a human, as a captive of time etc...
Why would this not lead to the fiction of choices and decisions being uninhibited by the laws of nature?

We humans are quite capable of taking the God Perspective so to speak...transcending the known universe entirely...
In fact imagining a universe that has no gravity for example can actually be a lot of fun...[ hard to do , I must admit, but a great challenge IMO]


If as you suggest:

It got there because it grew according to your dna and physical law, was then fed by signals from your sensory inputs that made it shape itself according to physical law, and now is producing an imagining in your consciousness according to physical law.

then one could extend and suggest that our ability to produce fiction, uninhibited by those laws, is hard wired into our brains by those laws...
I would be very interested in your view of the above extension...

 

[Angelus]

then one could extend and suggest that our ability to produce fiction, uninhibited by those laws, is hard wired into our brains by those laws...
I would be very interested in your view of the above extension...

That is exactly my point. When writers produce fiction, even fiction that describe worlds as far from our own experience as imaginable, it is not outside of or in opposition to natural law, but because of it. Our brains recognize patterns, and are able to manipulate them in very complex ways, but a pattern has to be introduced through our senses before we can manipulate it. We have to know things fall to the earth before we can imagine a world where they don't, and we also have to have an idea of reversal, of being able to take a concept and recognize what it's opposite would be. And our brains have to be the type of brains that enjoy manipulating concepts in that way.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That is exactly my point. When writers produce fiction, even fiction that describe worlds as far from our own experience as imaginable, it is not outside of or in opposition to natural law, but because of it. Our brains recognize patterns, and are able to manipulate them in very complex ways, but a pattern has to be introduced through our senses before we can manipulate it. We have to know things fall to the earth before we can imagine a world where they don't, and we also have to have an idea of reversal, of being able to take a concept and recognize what it's opposite would be. And our brains have to be the type of brains that enjoy manipulating concepts in that way.

Oh I agree with the general thrust of this however I believe it has no effect on the claims made in the OP.
So can I ask in your opinion is the fictional product of our imaginations determined (as distinct from "influenced" or "inspired") by the laws of physics?

To place some context for clarity sake.
If we imagine a "flying pig that jumps over the moon twice every day", how is this product of imagination being determined by the laws of physics, in your opinion.?

Try,

"The ability to produce fiction, uninhibited by the laws of Physics or Nature, is hard wired into our brains by those very same laws"

now that's a mouthful IMO...

 

[Baldeee]

You are the one that has just spent about 500+ words and quite a few posts to arrive at what appears to you to be trivial and irrelevant, not I..

You have spent this entire thread arriving at what I consider to be trivial and irrelevant.

the product of the imagination is fictional...like I proposed in the OP.

And the product of imagination is not real.
So how does this relate to your notion that freewill is a product of imagination, unless you are claiming or assuming that freewill is not real?

As Angelus has pointed out to you, the process of imagination follows the laws of physics (but then I do need to remember that you think standing up defies the laws of gravity) but what we imagine need not, as the subject of what we imagine is not a reality.

So are you concluding that freewill is not real?

What is it that requires you to make so many post to arrive at the same conclusion when it is indeed obvious to begin with?

I wonder why you opened a thread to make the trivial point that something that is not real need not obey the laws of physics.

Clearly you are attempting to use this triviality in some way to support the notion of freewill being genuine and not needing to obey the laws of physics.
But the only way you can do this is to conclude that free will is not real.
As soon as you try to make make free will a reality the argument you rely on becomes an irrelevancy as it only applies to the unreal.

To take it beyond that point, and to claim it is not an irrelevancy, will require you to confuse and equate the process of imagination with the subject of what we imagine.
One is real.
The other is not.


And the reason no one has seriously bothered with this path before is because it is doomed from the outset as being a dead end as soon as you try to apply it to anything real, as all you have claimed is the trivial point that the unreal does not need to obey the laws of physics.
Unless you consider freewill unreal?

Far from getting kudos (I assume this is what you meant by "cuedos"?) I would think it to the detriment of sciforums that such triviality and irrelevancy to the subject of freewill has actually generated this much discussion.


So to summarise, you consider freewill a product of imagination.
You consider the product of imagination to be unreal (a fiction).
You therefore consider Freewill to be fiction and not real.
You claim that something that is not real need not be bound by the laws of physics.
Thus you conclude that freewill need not be bound by the laws of physics.

Am I missing anything?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have spent this entire thread arriving at what I consider to be trivial and irrelevant.
And the product of imagination is not real.
So how does this relate to your notion that freewill is a product of imagination, unless you are claiming or assuming that freewill is not real?

As Angelus has pointed out to you, the process of imagination follows the laws of physics (but then I do need to remember that you think standing up defies the laws of gravity) but what we imagine need not, as the subject of what we imagine is not a reality.

So are you concluding that freewill is not real?
I wonder why you opened a thread to make the trivial point that something that is not real need not obey the laws of physics.

Clearly you are attempting to use this triviality in some way to support the notion of freewill being genuine and not needing to obey the laws of physics.
But the only way you can do this is to conclude that free will is not real.
As soon as you try to make make free will a reality the argument you rely on becomes an irrelevancy as it only applies to the unreal.

To take it beyond that point, and to claim it is not an irrelevancy, will require you to confuse and equate the process of imagination with the subject of what we imagine.
One is real.
The other is not.


And the reason no one has seriously bothered with this path before is because it is doomed from the outset as being a dead end as soon as you try to apply it to anything real, as all you have claimed is the trivial point that the unreal does not need to obey the laws of physics.
Unless you consider freewill unreal?

Far from getting kudos (I assume this is what you meant by "cuedos"?) I would think it to the detriment of sciforums that such triviality and irrelevancy to the subject of freewill has actually generated this much discussion.


So to summarise, you consider freewill a product of imagination.
You consider the product of imagination to be unreal (a fiction).
You therefore consider Freewill to be fiction and not real.
You claim that something that is not real need not be bound by the laws of physics.
Thus you conclude that freewill need not be bound by the laws of physics.

Am I missing anything?

yes...you are..badly...

1. Freewill being a fiction that we use every day to function as human beings is thus logically proved not to be an illusion of perception
2. Is logically proved not to be a mere appearance or state of self deception.
3. It has been sustained logically as being a fiction that allows us to make choices and decisions uninhibited by the laws of physics.

therefore taking full responsibility for those decisions is fully justified. *important point - re: ethical/moral issues

If you had read the OP properly you would have seen this:

Intro:
An extension to another similar thread, a possible way though the historically intractability of the question as to whether freewill is actual or an illusion of appearance.
Pre-amble:
It appears that the primary contention by those who believe free will is an illusion of appearance, is due to the belief that all choices and decisions are determined by the laws of physics, that the causal chain of cause and effect can not be avoided in a way that allows freedom of choice for the entity making a self determination. That the for freewill to be a reality it must exist in defiance of those laws.
I believe this can be refuted.
The following list of stated propositions, are test statements with a brief & informal explanation, and I invite discussion and refutation in the hope to evolve a potential "secular" solution to this intractable issue.

but alas you have not read the OP and have blindly made inane comments that are irrelevant to this thread except to eventually agree with the Op that states that the product of the imagination is not determined by the laws of Physics.
Once again you have made a fool of yourself and seek to blame others...

Do you still hold to the view that you indicated in another thread that freewill is an illusion of perception?. and if so please by all means attempt to justify that position.

btw thanks for the spelling corrections...a great help!
I pay $30aud an hour for proof readers... do you want a job?

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Baldeee,

Once again you have made a fool of yourself and seek to blame others...

1. It is not that you disagree with the OP that generates the opinion expressed above.
2. It is that you invest too heavily in attacking me personally, with out first checking what you are actually using to attack me with.
3. You are focused on the "man" instead of the "ball" and the ball is the notion that freewill is an illusion that may be refuted as the OP suggests.
4. By being focused on the "man" instead of the "ball" leaves you wide open to making foolish mistakes which makes for a terrible representation of your actual and IMO fine caliber as a debater and responder.

Play the ball and not the man.
ad hominem (ahd HAW-mih-nem) -- From the Latin and liberally translated: against the man. More formally known as Argumentum ad hominem, or an argument against the person and not their (his) thoughts. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, in that the argument fails to address the issues presented or to support the point of the speaker uttering the Argumentum ad hominem. There is no doubt that an Argumentum ad hominem can be an effective rhetorical tactic on the part of the speaker because it often appeals to emotions or prejudices of the listener rather than intellect, or is directed against the character of the person rather than the subject under discussion.

src: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/10/messages/132.html

It is also a sign that the attacker has a very weak argument and unable to defend their own thoughts with out resorting to diversionary tactics.

 

[Baldeee]

Freewill being a fiction that we use every day to function as human beings is thus logically proved not to be an illusion of perception

Unsupported supposition.
We certainly appear to use it.
And appearance of use does not logically prove that it is more than the mere appearance of use.

Is logically proved not to be a mere appearance or state of self deception.

Unsupported supposition, as per above.

It has been sustained logically as being a fiction that allows us to make choices and decisions uninhibited by the laws of physics.

No it hasn't.
You have merely stated this to be the case, despite not addressing the criticisms levied against it.

If you had read the OP properly you would have seen this:
...
but alas you have not read the OP and have blindly made inane comments that are irrelevant to this thread except to eventually agree with the Op that states that the product of the imagination is not determined by the laws of Physics.
Once again you have made a fool of yourself and seek to blame others...

I have read the OP.
I agree that the imagination is not strictly determined, as it may be also involve an element of the random.
But the imagination process still obeys the laws of physics, because the process is real.
The subject of the imagination, not being real, is not beholden to the laws.
My issue is not that something unreal can defy the laws of physics but with you agreeing to this and then claiming freewill, which you consider real, is thus free from the need to obey the laws of physics.
You are also still confusing the process of imagination with the mere subject of the imagination.

Do you still hold to the view that you indicated in another thread that freewill is an illusion of perception?. and if so please by all means attempt to justify that position.

Yes, I do still hold to it.
My justification is detailed in the other thread.
But simply put, everything adheres to the laws of the universe.
A genuine and real freewill requires defiance of those laws.
Thus what we see as a genuine freewill can be understood to be mere perception.
An illusion.

btw thanks for the spelling corrections...a great help!
I pay $30aud an hour for proof readers... do you want a job?

Wouldn't it be more efficient to put it toward some spelling lessons?

 

[Baldeee]

It is not that you disagree with the OP that generates the opinion expressed above.

Yes it is.
Not necessarily in all the individual components.
But in the way you try to fit them together.

It is that you invest too heavily in attacking me personally, with out first checking what you are actually using to attack me with.

I attack your arguments.
You turn it personal (such as with this latest post of yours).
I merely attack things I disagree with, and much of that lately has stemmed from your claims, and in a significant part with the way you fail to back up those claims, and jump from claim to conclusion with no actual argument, as if your claim is sufficient.
So don't take this the wrong way, but I couldn't care less about you.
And it is just another of your lame tactics to try and plead victim instead of addressing the criticisms against your arguments.

You are focused on the "man" instead of the "ball" and the ball is the notion that freewill is an illusion that may be refuted as the OP suggests.

I am focused on what you write.
Please indicate where I have attacked you instead of the "ball"?
I admit that I may sometimes take "man and ball" in the same tackle.
That is the nature of sport.
But don't ever confuse that for the nonsense you are accusing me of.

By being focused on the "man" instead of the "ball" leaves you wide open to making foolish mistakes which makes for a terrible representation of your actual and IMO fine caliber as a debater and responder.

I'm sure it would do if what you were saying resembled reality.
But you are rather wide of the mark.

It is also a sign that the attacker has a very weak argument and unable to defend their own thoughts with out resorting to diversionary tactics.

It is indeed, which is why I suggest you refrain from further diversionary tactics and actually address the criticism of your argument.

 

[Quantum Quack]

oh but I have repeatedly...and successfully too I might add..
Do you wish to have another go at it?

be specific and too the point with out the usual padding...

like this contradiction of yours:

But simply put, everything adheres to the laws of the universe.

except fiction yes?

is fiction a thing?
does fiction exist?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I might add that if you really valued your posts as you seem to do you would be happy to place an image of yourself as an avatar.. why don't you?
and stand by your posts with, dare I say, honor?

 

[Baldeee]

I might add that if you really valued your posts as you seem to do you would be happy to place an image of yourself as an avatar.. why don't you?
and stand by your posts with, dare I say, honor?

I have no reason to post a picture of myself.
It does not alter the words.
It does not change the meaning.
And it is irrelevant to me standing by my posts.

 

[Baldeee]

oh but I have repeatedly...and successfully too I might add..

No you haven't.
You merely say you disagree (or words to that effect).
Then repeat the same claims.

Do you wish to have another go at it?

Perhaps when you actually address the issues the first time.

be specific and too the point with out the usual padding...

like this contradiction of yours:

How is that a contradiction?

except fiction yes?

is fiction a thing?
does fiction exist?

No, fiction is not a thing that has existence.
It is a term we use to describe something that is not real.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, fiction is not a thing that has existence.
It is a term we use to describe something that is not real.

So , uhm do you have any unreal plans for Easter?
What are your unreal thoughts about reality?
oh i see, you can't express them because they aren't real....
So what are you going to post next?

More "unreal" nonsense?
After all your post would be merely a product of your imagination, would it not?
So every time you post you contradict yourself...