05 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KIt is simple, you choose what you will. It is done each time a person
What I mean is, that if you have free will you might be able to choose a or b. As in give up smoking or not. What makes this free will choose a or b?
acts, it is done each time a person does not act, it is what defines
a person. What makes us unique is what comes from us, a major
part of that are our choices. I started smoking when I was about 10
or 11 years old, that was a choice I made, once made there was
always the choice to be made, continue or stop. The ease of making
that choice to stop became harder as the years passed by, but it
was always there. Just as I made choices to pursue art, reading, or
anything else in life, I put myself in the place where I can do those
things. If you for example wanted to learn another language, you
would then have to choose to put yourself in a place where it can
be done, or you really didn't make that choice, you only thought
about it.
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYou missed the point. If there is a free will, it must be autonmous from the physical world. So what makes it choose a or b?
It is simple, you choose what you will. It is done each time a person
acts, it is done each time a person does not act, it is what defines
a person. What makes us unique is what comes from us, a major
part of that are our choices. I started smoking when I was about 10
or 11 years old, that was a choice I made, once made there was
always the choice to b ...[text shortened]... here it can
be done, or you really didn't make that choice, you only thought
about it.
Kelly
If is autonomous, it can choose only a or b which must be essentially a random choice. But if it isn't random, something causes it to choose a or b. Which complately undermines a free will, if a or be is caused.
10 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI guess I do miss your point, you are saying that there is no free
You missed the point. If there is a free will, it must be autonmous from the physical world. So what makes it choose a or b?
If is autonomous, it can choose only a or b which must be essentially a random choice. But if it isn't random, something causes it to choose a or b. Which complately undermines a free will, if a or be is caused.
will, because your will chooses a or b? Unlike a computer program
that picks variables and does with them what we tell it, the human
will does what it wills as it wills. This is true if what we choose to do
goes against our better judgment, goes along with our better
judgment, if it goes against our wants or desires, goes along with
our wants and desires. Our will if it is not disciplined by choice or
force it will simply act as desires rules, or physical needs push and
pull it along, or rage, or anger, or lust. If will isn't bound by those
things, but can for example break free of a drug addiction, or
causes someone to turn down a sexual favor from someone they
find attractive, or cause someone to turn in a wallet found with all
the money intact, it isn't bound as I think you have suggested. This
is why I think Jesus telling his followers to repent because the
Kingdom of God is at hand is very key to the human experience.
Where we are bound we can go to a source that sets us free.
Kelly
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by KarlukOkay, what chemicals make up consciousness? Do you know that
Perchance chemicals themselves are not conscious. Nevertheless, it takes trillions of chemicals to make up a consciousness? Which one of those chemicals is the supreme comander??!!
it is the chemicals doing it, or housing that which makes the choice?
How do you know it takes trillions?
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess what I am trying to say is if a free will can choose something, something else must cause it to choose it (whether it be Jesus, faith, your next door neighbour, or as you described it, a sexual desire) or otherwise such a choice would be essentially random. Hence, if something is causing this free will to choose, how can it be free?
I guess I do miss your point, you are saying that there is no free
will, because your will chooses a or b? Unlike a computer program
that picks variables and does with them what we tell it, the human
will does what it wills as it wills. This is true if what we choose to do
goes against our better judgment, goes along with our better
judgment, if it go ...[text shortened]... y to the human experience.
Where we are bound we can go to a source that sets us free.
Kelly
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThis is still a damned interesting discussion! Either I have not made up my mind yet, or else my brain hasn’t finished iterating to a conclusion...
I guess what I am trying to say is if a free will can choose something, something else must cause it to choose it (whether it be Jesus, faith, your next door neighbour, or as you described it, a sexual desire) or otherwise such a choice would be essentially random. Hence, if something is causing this free will to choose, how can it be free?
Way back, I said that if choice (I am trying to avoid the phrase “free will,” which I think Conrau allows on the basis of his statement that we really don’t make decisions, although our brain apparatus reasons to a conclusion) is an illusion, then the illusion seems inescapable. That is, I suspect that to Conrau and Coletti some “choices” seem more difficult than others, there is the feeling of confusion or uncertainty or concern, a furrowed brow, a sense that they are trying to make a decision. This is all explainable within the “physicalist” model that they are arguing from (especially with the error factor that, I think, Coletti mentioned a couple of times). But it means, I think, that—if—it is all an illusion, it is an illusion generated by the same apparatus that generates the decision-making process. The illusion itself is “hard-wired,” so to speak.*
If that is the case, then whether or not we actually make “free” decisions (within the given network of conditions and constraints—that is, that the conditions and constraints are not absolute), seems to me to be an ultimately untestable hypothesis. You either accept the physicalist explanation “axiomatically” (note the scare quotes) or not.
Nietzsche, for example, long before modern neuro-biology and brain research, made the argument that the conditions and causes surrounding any event are likely to be so complex (like multiple inter-locking chains) that we cannot practically sort out all of them and say just this caused that. Correspondingly (and this is me, not Nietzsche), we cannot know whether there is, or is not, an “area of freedom” within all those causes and conditions.
I’m inclined to follow KellyJay, with the “if it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck” line of argument. Even if that’s an illusion, then it’s the kind of illusion that, as Hume might say, allows us to operate reasonably well in the phenomenal world. Despite my satirical characterization, it’s not necessarily a weak argument.
On the other hand, the issue I keep grappling with is Conrau’s argument that to escape from the physicalist model one needs to assume a sort of “ghost in the machine.” That one I still have not got around...
These are just the imposition of my thoughts on you guys, and a long-winded way of bumping this thread up a bit. 🙂
* While I follow Coletti’s logic-based argument, it does not always seem that we arrive at—or ought to arrive—decisions strictly on the basis of logic. Emotions, sympathies, intuitions seem often to play a significant role. I “make” some decisions simply because I love my wife, for example. Again, I think these factors are also subsumable under the physicalist approach.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by vistesdI still find the biological discussion of free will compelling but since most people are uncomfortable with the idea what I am to do, is work backwards.
This is still a damned interesting discussion! Either I have not made up my mind yet, or else my brain hasn’t finished iterating to a conclusion...
Way back, I said that if choice (I am trying to avoid the phrase “free will,” which I think Conrau allows on the basis of his statement that we really don’t make decisions, although our brain apparatus reason ...[text shortened]... , for example. Again, I think these factors are also subsumable under the physicalist approach.
If there is a free will, what makes it choose to give up a addiction or not? I think we agreed that if there is a free will exists, it must transcend the physical laws of the universe, or as you put it presuppose the existence of a "ghost in the machine" (which would transcend the physical laws of the universe). I think I did myself a disservice in this assertion. What I should have said, is that a free will must transcend all laws. Hence, a free will must unconstrained in its ability to choose between available options. If genetic predisposition and the environment reduce these options from the entire alphabet to just a and b, then this free will must be able to freely choose a or b in order to be free (albeit limited in its freedom). However, if truly free, we would expect choices to occur randomly. but this does not happen. So I infer that soemthing must cause my "free will" to choose a or b. This I suppose, is the working out backwards for assuming consciousness is chemical.
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KIt almost sounds like the only people in your opinion that can
I guess what I am trying to say is if a free will can choose something, something else must cause it to choose it (whether it be Jesus, faith, your next door neighbour, or as you described it, a sexual desire) or otherwise such a choice would be essentially random. Hence, if something is causing this free will to choose, how can it be free?
possibly have free will are those that are oblivious, unaware,
or unconscious when it comes to everything else in the universe.
Is that your point?
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIt almost sounds like the only people in your opinion that can
It almost sounds like the only people in your opinion that can
possibly have free will are those that are oblivious, unaware,
or unconscious when it comes to everything else in the universe.
Is that your point?
Kelly
possibly have free will are those that are oblivious, unaware,
or unconscious when it comes to everything else in the universe.
I really dont see how you arrived at this conclusion. I have always maintaied that consciousness exists, that intelligence exists but i dont see how free will exists. In fact I now see it as logically implausible
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou don't see how I arrived at this conclusion I'm amazed.
[b]It almost sounds like the only people in your opinion that can
possibly have free will are those that are oblivious, unaware,
or unconscious when it comes to everything else in the universe.
I really dont see how you arrived at this conclusion. I have always maintaied that consciousness exists, that intelligence exists but i dont see how free will exists. In fact I now see it as logically implausible[/b]
Kelly
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou are claiming that there is always another "cause' for every choice
[b]It almost sounds like the only people in your opinion that can
possibly have free will are those that are oblivious, unaware,
or unconscious when it comes to everything else in the universe.
I really dont see how you arrived at this conclusion. I have always maintaied that consciousness exists, that intelligence exists but i dont see how free will exists. In fact I now see it as logically implausible[/b]
we make. That choice's cause is what your suggesting is removes
free will, because had there been nothing affecting the choice
than you can have free will, with something affecting the choice you
do not have free will. Am I getting this right?
So the only thing that can have free will is something that is alone
in the universe, where nothing can touch it, nothing can force it to
do what it wants, including whatever makes up the creatures person,
be it chemical or spirit. I don't seem to see you making the case that
with a universe filled with forces, something can go through being
able to make a choice inspite of all the forces pushing and pulling
on it.
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIf there is a free will it must exist in a state where it cannot be affected by other forces, as you put it. I dont believe free will exists because if this is, then a choice must essentially be randon (which doesn't conform to my intuitive understanding of reality.)
You are claiming that there is always another "cause' for every choice
we make. That choice's [b]cause is what your suggesting is removes
free will, because had there been nothing affecting the choice
than you can have free will, with something affecting the choice you
do not have free will. Am I getting this right?
So the only thing that can hav ...[text shortened]... gh being
able to make a choice inspite of all the forces pushing and pulling
on it.
Kelly[/b]
15 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou keep saying that choice must be random to be free, I beg to
If there is a free will it must exist in a state where it cannot be affected by other forces, as you put it. I dont believe free will exists because if this is, then a choice must essentially be randon (which doesn't conform to my intuitive understanding of reality.)
differ. Random choices are not free choices, they aimless ones
nothing more. Aimless or random, do not equal free will choices,
they don’t equal choices at all, but are simply aimless actions
without meaning or purpose. Choice itself requires something to
be done deliberately, action or inaction both require a choice to
be made, both are made at times under compulsion, and some
times without compulsion.
Personally, I believe free will can only be seen in the midst of
forces pushing and pulling against the one making choices! As we
move through life, we choose to live our lives as we see fit,
sometimes it is for the good of all, some times for selfish reasons.
Your views about aimless or random actions of will, do they show
intent with freedom of will? I think not, but someone who to their
own harm does something that they think is the right thing to do
even though it costs them, for me that shows free will. Doing the
right thing where all forces speak against that choice, shows intent,
not the simple flowing down stream with the garbage type of
mentality that people may have by always taking the easy way out.
Kelly
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KHi Conrau
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.
Anyone disagree?
Firstly I would like to thank you for the thought provoking and extremely interesting topic as well as your subsequent posts, which in my opinion show a thorough interest and research.
Thank you.
I would like to put a few questions and points to you and I hope that you would endear me.
However, please forgive me if I exhibit any ignorance, for this is a subject that I have only recently become interested in and hence am not very well versed or knowledgeable.
Firstly.
Are you saying that we are a product of our environment, external factors and internal genetics etc, which have completely programmed our brains, and continue to do so?
Thus free will is an illusion because ultimately, the illusion of choice boils down to our brain processing various 'alternatives' by means of chemical reactions, and hence arrives at a conclusion.
Hence we do not control our thoughts but our thoughts control us, simply because our brain reasons in a certain way given all the factors that make up its constitution.
How does Quantum Physics work?
I have a vague idea
But in context of the current discussion, let us assume that person X is faced with a variety of alternatives from which he must 'choose'
Assuming an identical background and identical set of circumstances each time, will he arrive at the same 'choice' in an infinite number of trials?
Or does Quantum physics dictate that some variability exists?
I have always argued with female friends that there is no such a thing as a soul mate. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain, much like all other emotions, so you don’t chose who you fall in love with. The choice is an illusion. You are genetically predisposed to certain people. The choice is not really yours to make. A number of people can trigger the reaction in your brain and hence the theory that only one person exists for you is flawed. I understand that the implications are not entirely congruent with free will, but if you don’t chose who you fall in love with, do you really chose anything?
Are all of our ‘choices’ governed by chemistry?
The notion that we are entirely governed by this chemistry where there is actually no choice is actually quite plausible.
Naturally, without choice, there is no free will in my understanding of the concept.
What are your thoughts on destiny?
I can see how people would struggle with the concept of humans being programmed robots without free will, basically acting on a type of instinct, much like animals.
But in my opinion it makes a whole lot of sense.
Don't be too discouraged by the satirical posts.
I much appreciate everything you have contributed and I hope you continue to do so.