Free Will and Duality.

If we accept materialism as a solution for Body-Mind problem, it should follow that all conscious phenomena IS the neurons firing and to say there is a distinction would be making a category mistake. While this is commonly accepted, there is a persistent tendency to discard conscious phenomena as an illusion by explaining the physiological processes responsible for it.

Most people would recognize a claim that love is an illusion merely because there is an underlying physiological process behind it as a fallacy, yet when it comes to free will, the fallacy seems to go unnoticed. The fallacy goes like this:

X(in this case X is conscious phenomena) happens due to the following processes Y, therefore X is an illusion.

How many times do we hear people say "free will is an illusion"? I read or hear it every time i bring up a topic of free will vs determinism into a discussion. People seem to forget that Free Will is a conscious phenomena, it is an expirience we go through in our heads and thus to say that just because it happens due to neurological processes(even though they are determined), it is an illusion is fallacious.

Here i would like to make a distinction between Free Will(FW) as a philosophical concept of Libertarianism(L) and Free Will as a conscious phenomena. While Libertarianism may indeed be an illusion or even a Delusion, Free Will(FW) as a Conscious Phenomena(CP) is not.

FWCP is simply a conscious process of decision making which is ultimately neurons firing, they are two sides of the same coin. To speak of FWCP as separate or an illusion is to forget that it IS the neurons firing and thus make a category mistake. The sensation of choice might be, on neurological level some type of synapse or synapses forming, but that does not make it an illusion, it simply explains the underlying processes.

When people read about Determinism, they usually have an aversion to the idea and i believe such emotional response happens largely due to mistaking FWCP for FWL.

FWCP being a set of neurons firing implies that it should possible to construct a robot that has free will that would be a set of logic gates opening and closing.

I think a more relevant question is:

Explain how it is possible to construct an intelligent robot that does not have free will.

You see, if robots have free will, they might someday decide not to listen to orders from humans. Therefore, we had better be quite sure how to construct them so that they are not free, for our own future survival.

Intelligence without free will would seem to me, to be an illusion...

Me too. That's why I'm concerned about technology getting away from us. We may not be a part of their agenda, or worse, maybe we will.

If you Know what is right.
You do it.
Your only choice is to F/up.
There is no Free Will.

With no free will
you can't know what is right or wrong,
you don't know if you are doing it or not doing it,
there would be no choice that would be a choice.
And you wouldn't be able to contemplate the idea of will be it free or otherwise.

There is awareness before concious,
Free will is to choose to believe what is right or wrong.
After which you Know nothing.

Consiousness is awareness.
Free will is awareness. To choose is to perceive something. To believe is to express an identification with something. Right and wrong then becomes relative to changing patterns of identification with ones self and the perception of that which is outside of ones self, or something.

There is no such thing as nothing, only the appearance of nothing in light of absorption into a something, in any case nothing becomes a something.

Is an ant contious?
An awareness is not necessarily aware of its own awareness,a contious is.

Yes. (I'm assuming you mean conscious) Of itself, not like a human can be, but possibly at the same level as some humans are.

If by contious you mean conscious: relative to levels of consciousness, awareness is subjective, like human consciousness in differing states of conscious awareness such as waking, dreaming, sleeping and beyond.
Consciousness is awareness, for awareness is active consciousness, and consciousness not hindered by identification with boundaries of limitation, is aware of itself.

Please forgive my disregard of spelling.
A word is (for me) a vessal that the qualia of meaning embark,
for the journey thru the sea of consciousness.
In a stormy sea the value of a ship is not in its beauty,
but in what it holds and how she sails.


A single awareness cannot be aware of itself.
To be aware of self requires the perceptions of another awareness
and the communication of said perception to the awareness that becomes conscious.

Our conscious is kinetic,the free will part is that the conscious can choose which perspective,
ie (awareness within us) to perceive thru.

The limits of our conscious are deliniated by what our concept of self is.

You're forgiven, However as long as you intend to give meaning to these terms (or give importance to the contents of the vessel) it might suit you to give some thought to the spelling or the word, so that your intention is not lost in meaninglessness.... After all the word and its content are one with each other.

By the way a single awareness is capable of being aware of itself. It is in the discovery of ones nature and the commitment to focus, that awareness is recognized in unity through the development of expanding conscious awareness.
In meditation it is natural to witness ones self or to have awareness become aware of itself, and it becomes a natural constant in the first stages of developing consciousness or enlightenment according to Patanjali.

The limits of our consciousness are illusions created by distraction, and so one often disregards the witnessing aspect of ones self. As it is, awareness is aware of itself all the time. It is only the ego that is unaware and the ego is a construct of consciousness that is illusion.

A unity of 1?

Yeah

Nobody dies alone,
every one dies of lonlyness.

Another way to look at it is that no one really dies at all....

Every One needs to die.

There is only one.
Everyone is One
and the One needs nothing.


Tag.. you're it....

Read and think on my friend.

Gentlemen, please, do not alter anchored meanings of phrases.
I recommend to follow the paths of the Analytical Philosophy in such sensitive phrase as Free Will is.

/*******/
Free Will

in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints. Free will is denied by those who espouse any of various forms of determinism. Arguments for free will are based on the subjective experience of freedom, on sentiments of guilt, on revealed religion, and on the universal supposition of responsibility for personal actions that underlies the concepts of law, reward, punishment, and incentive. In theology, the existence of free will must be reconciled with God's omniscience and goodness (in allowing man to choose badly), and with divine grace, which allegedly is necessary for any meritorious act. A prominent feature of modern Existentialism is the concept of a radical, perpetual, and frequently agonizing freedom of choice. Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, speaks of the individual "condemned to be free" even though his situation may be wholly determined.

Copyright © Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

Thinking is not always a good thing.
But I'm reading the enlightened platitudes.


You mean, stay with the herd..

Altering scientific terminology makes problem in deriving complex ideas from basic ones, deviating shapes of the reality and leading us astray by ways of misleading.

---

What, are you talking about?