GENIUS FORUMS

Clyde,

Matt: We're all nothing more than robots created by causal conditioning.

Clyde: Maybe. Maybe not.

When this question is considered in relation to causality, it can be seen that there is no alternative.

If free will is a distinct thing (and it must be, otherwise it wouldn't exist), then it is either caused or uncaused. If it is caused, then it is fully subject to causation. If it is uncaused, then what could it be but totally random? And if it's random, it would be fully subject to randomness, so how could it be free?

If that is the case, there is no way we can independently know that because all we know is what we would be causally conditioned to know which, as I view it, means we should have no faith in what we ‘know’ (which may be true anyway, even if it is not the case).

We have no choice but to have faith in what we know. Even the idea that we should have no faith in what we know is a piece of knowledge that you would have to have faith in for it to mean anything.

What we really need to do is to make sure that what we know conforms to logic, because that's the only tool that we have that enables us to know anything. Even the simple act of looking at something requires logic to direct the eyes to a particular thing, as opposed to letting them move around randomly.

As to the fact that all we know is causally conditioned, I agree with that, but the fact that it is all caused doesn't mean that it is all false. We can be caused to know true things, too.

Further, if that is the case, there is no need to do anything (which may be true anyway, even if it is not the case). For example, there is no need to seek the truth or imagine that you are seeking the truth, because what you do (or imagine) is causally conditioned.

Well, we are part of the realm of causality, so we cause things with our actions. It's true that truth seeking is caused by things outside of us, but seeking is also a cause as well and, although it might not lead to truth, the possibility is there and seeking increases the odds of finding it. The fact of causality doesn't negate the possibility in any way.

Finally, if that is the case, there is no need to do be concerned about anything (which may be true anyway, even if it is not the case). Of course, one will be concerned or not based on causal conditioning, but there is no need be concerned about being concerned or not.

Why not? If causality is ultimately true, then I would think that means we should be even more concerned because that means we're an integral part of the universe and that the effects of our actions grow larger and larger as they proceed through time.

Matt;

There is so much in your post that may be analyzed and discussed. I hope others participate, pro or con, both or neither.

I’ll start by addressing your last paragraph,

Why not? If causality is ultimately true, then I would think that means we should be even more concerned because that means we're an integral part of the universe and that the effects of our actions grow larger and larger as they proceed through time. [emphasis added]

IF it is the case that we are solely and wholly causally conditioned robots, then there is no meaning to “should” or any sentence which includes any word that requires our choice. As robots our actions, speech, and our very thoughts would be, by definition, causally conditioned and we would have at best an illusion of choice or preference. So, rather than be concerned because our actions have effects, we would have no personal responsibility for our actions as they were determined by circumstances. And given the vast size and age of the universe and our integral, though exceedingly small and short part in the universe, it would be more accurate to state that the universe has preferences and makes choices.

clyde

clyde wrote:IF it is the case that we are solely and wholly causally conditioned robots, then there is no meaning to “should” or any sentence which includes any word that requires our choice.

Meaning and value is created by the robots themselves. That is, we are programmed to create meaning and value.

So, rather than be concerned because our actions have effects, we would have no personal responsibility for our actions as they were determined by circumstances.

Robots don't know ahead of time what they are going to do, and they don't know what they will be programmed to do from one moment to the next. That's where their "free will" and responsibility come into play.

Clyde,

There is so much in your post that may be analyzed and discussed.

Sorry about that; I have a habit of getting wound up sometimes (woohoo!)

We can take our time, there's no rush. Philosophy is a long art.

I hope others participate, pro or con, both or neither.

Yeah, me too.

Kevin;

IF it is the case, then yes we are programmed to believe we have the ability to choose. My point was that there is no actual ability to choose as our preferences and choices are causally determined.

Not knowing what one will do next does not confer or prove “free will”.

clyde

Matt;

OK. Here's something from the top:

If free will is a distinct thing (and it must be, otherwise it wouldn't exist), then it is either caused or uncaused.

Is causation a distinct thing?

clyde

Is causation a distinct thing?

No, it's not distinct thing. It is thingness, so it can't be a thing. In other words, when things exist, they exist by way of causation. Things and causation arise together.

clyde wrote:IF it is the case, then yes we are programmed to believe we have the ability to choose. My point was that there is no actual ability to choose as our preferences and choices are causally determined.

There's no question of "if" since all things necessarily have a cause.

But just because things are caused doesn't mean that there is no meaning, responsibility, or experience of free will. These things will be experienced if one is caused to experience them.

Matt;

IF “[t]hings and causation arise together,” which I take to mean simultaneously and perhaps interdependently, then causation does not cause things to exist.

clyde

What do you mean by "existence"? How do you determine when a thing actually exists?

Kevin;

I understand you to posit that we are programmed to experience free will. That does not mean or prove that we actually have free will. The simple meaning of free will is “freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”. Are you arguing that we have free will, that we can act free of causal conditions? How do you reconcile this with "all things necessarily have a cause"?

clyde

Matt;

I usually understand "exist" phenomenologically; i.e., as that which arises (and passes away) in awareness.

You previously wrote,

In other words, when things exist, they exist by way of causation.

What did you mean by “exist”?

clyde

NOTE: On reflection, I sometimes think of cause as a single simple reason (press the button) for each effect whether the effect is single and simple (door bell rings) or multiple and complex (fire alarms sound in building and people run out and firefighters rush to the building), when the truth is there is a causal realm, the universe.

clyde

Clyde,

Clyde: I usually understand "exist" phenomenologically; i.e., as that which arises (and passes away) in awareness.

You previously wrote,

Matt: In other words, when things exist, they exist by way of causation.

Clyde: What did you mean by “exist”?

I would describe it in the same way you did, but I'd like to make an attempt to clarify what I mean by "awareness".

Like anything, awareness can be thought of as having both physical and logical components.

The physical component goes from nothing to awareness of the thing, like being asleep and then waking up.

The logical component starts with the Totality (everything that exists) and ignores a part of it to create awareness of something particular. So it's flipped. In other words, awareness begins with the logical assumption that there is a Totality and a boundary is drawn within this Totality around the thing that is within awareness.

Every boundary has two sides (hot and cold, cup and not-cup), hence it's called duality. The two sides logically necessitate each other and thus cause each other. Taken together, they constitute the Totality.

So, to answer your question, existence is causation; duality; the Totality.

NOTE: On reflection, I sometimes think of cause as a single simple reason (press the button) for each effect whether the effect is single and simple (door bell rings) or multiple and complex (fire alarms sound in building and people run out and firefighters rush to the building), when the truth is there is a causal realm, the universe.

Yeah, it's natural to mentally ignore much of the realm of causation when we act in the world because our knowledge of things will always be limited. But ultimately, every thing is casually connected to every other thing in the universe. That's a logical certainty.

Matt;

Your explanation began strong by agreeing with me : ), but then!

I’ll only address your first statement,

Like anything, awareness can be thought of as having both physical and logical components.

So before you begin your explanation of awareness you create a duality of physical and logical and assert that awareness (and everything) has these two components. How did you arrive at this? What is physical? What is logical? Are these interrelated; i.e., the not-physical is the logical and the not-logical is the physical?

clyde

Matt Gregory wrote:

NOTE: On reflection, I sometimes think of cause as a single simple reason (press the button) for each effect whether the effect is single and simple (door bell rings) or multiple and complex (fire alarms sound in building and people run out and firefighters rush to the building), when the truth is there is a causal realm, the universe.

Yeah, it's natural to mentally ignore much of the realm of causation when we act in the world because our knowledge of things will always be limited. But ultimately, every thing is casually connected to every other thing in the universe. That's a logical certainty.

Why do you write that this is a logical certainty? How would you know this? Isn’t it sufficient to state that this is how the universe appears to function?

Clyde,

Your explanation began strong by agreeing with me : ), but then!

There's always a "but", isn't there? hehe

Clyde: I’ll only address your first statement,

Matt: Like anything, awareness can be thought of as having both physical and logical components.

Clyde: So before you begin your explanation of awareness you create a duality of physical and logical and assert that awareness (and everything) has these two components. How did you arrive at this? What is physical? What is logical? Are these interrelated; i.e., the not-physical is the logical and the not-logical is the physical?

Well, I'm not really trying to assert that awareness has these two components. I was trying to say that these are two ways of looking at it, because I wanted to make it clear that I'm not talking about something physical when I go to describe existence. I'm talking about something mental. I just split it up into physical and logical in order to push the physical out of the way.

The physical is actually something created by logic and doesn't really exist, other than as an idea.

A thing is not just the sum of its parts, but the sum of the “relativity” between those parts. This sum of relativity is actually an additional causal effect to the individual causal effect of the actual parts. While everything only physically consists of that which is absolutely fundamental, namely dualistic forces, things are created by layers of the relativity of these forces to all that surrounds it. In other words it is relativity that creates things. For instance, a molecule of water is not a wave, but a large number of such molecules all with symmetrical or synergistic causal effects can create a wave.

The above needs to be understood under the context that a) observers create things relative to what they have the tools to observe with and as such the additional causal effects may be different from observer to observer, it is arbitrary – eg for a blade of grass, an ant will observe different layers of relativity to a human, and b) as everything is interconnected, the thing and the parts themselves are not truly distinct entities – it is only relativity that makes them distinct.

Relativity is a kind of evolution of thingness from the unobservable fundamental forces, to light and energy, to things that give the appearance of solid matter.

Free will is no different. It is the additional causal effect caused by the causal relativity of the parts of the human brain relative to the current experience.

Lets call Free Will the perceived illusionary independence of human decision making. What makes up a human’s decision to act in regard to some particular moral or philosophical matter is caused by the present experience being relative to concepts stored in the brain, and the workings of the brains calculating tools, the frontal lobes, and the current state of emotional chemical production. If one wished to understand why a person made a particular decision, one could dissect all the influences into a million parts, but that would still not provide all the information needed, unless one included how each of the parts was relative to all the other parts. Because the latter is so complex, unlike the parts it cannot be traced or conceptualised in a linear fashion, then we are lead by this inability to define the causes, to then imagine the mental event as being a form of “Free Will”.

clyde wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:

NOTE: On reflection, I sometimes think of cause as a single simple reason (press the button) for each effect whether the effect is single and simple (door bell rings) or multiple and complex (fire alarms sound in building and people run out and firefighters rush to the building), when the truth is there is a causal realm, the universe.

Yeah, it's natural to mentally ignore much of the realm of causation when we act in the world because our knowledge of things will always be limited. But ultimately, every thing is casually connected to every other thing in the universe. That's a logical certainty.

Why do you write that this is a logical certainty? How would you know this? Isn’t it sufficient to state that this is how the universe appears to function?

No, it's not only insufficient, but such a question is based on a misunderstanding of what causation is. Causation is thingness, and the particular way the universe functions is merely an idea, a thing, and therefore it falls within the realm of causation. So, causation doesn't function in any particular way. Functionality only comes about when we limit the realm of causation for practical purposes.

Jamesh wrote:A thing is not just the sum of its parts, but the sum of the “relativity” between those parts.

Bah. A thing is a single flash of thought: Bam! ...thing.

Matt;

OK, I understand now that you did not mean two components but two views, a physical view and a mental view. You seem to believe that one view, the mental, is preeminent over the other physical view. Why? They are both merely views and one view may be more useful in some circumstances and the other view may be more useful in other circumstances.

More troubling (to me) is that you seem to equate (confuse?) logical and mental. I understand mental as including imagination, memory, thinking, reasoning (logic), etc. How are you using these terms?

clyde

BAM! A thought is a thing.

Hey, you guys are bringing to mind Alan Watts.

"A thing is a think"

Also, I'm really hungry for some reason

:-)

BAM!

Steven;

Alan Watts was an early influence on my development. I now prefer (and believe he might as well): A things is an event (or occurrence).

Yes, it's dinner time here. Chow!

clyde

clyde wrote:BAM! A thought is a thing.

Exactly!

SHAZAM!