11 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou have shown a case of a disease which is 'caused' in part by a gene. Your leap from single cases to the claim for ALL mental activity being genetically controlled is unfounded. An analogous example would be asking why all dogs shouldn't be brown after seeing a few chocolate labs. This is just bad inductive logic.
First of all. There is a gene which can predispose people to depression. People who have this gene are susceptible to developing depression. This is because the gene translates to a protein which does not perform its function properly in the brain. This gene has been encompassed as part of the cause of depression. Hence, if that person develops depression, ...[text shortened]... consider ourselves as free agents. And i will go so far as to assert we are not free at all.
note: No one said depression had anything to do with free will anyway.
That is an interesting view of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately it only applies on the molecular level, so no one will be at Mars. You may have missed my point in bringing this up. I simply wanted to point out that everything is not determined. My reason in doing so was to illustrate that there all alternate paths, which opens the door for choice.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by yousersJust because their are alternate paths does not imply choice. These quantum events are founded on probabilities. Also Quantum mechanics does not just occur at the molecular level.
You have shown a case of a disease which is 'caused' in part by a gene. Your leap from single cases to the claim for ALL mental activity being genetically controlled is unfounded. An analogous example would be asking why all dogs shouldn't be brown after seeing a few chocolate labs. This is just bad inductive logic.
note: No one said depression had anyth ...[text shortened]... n doing so was to illustrate that there all alternate paths, which opens the door for choice.
I have also made another case. If you disrupt the brain (i.e. by using chemicals) you lose consciousness. As you suggested before that their maybe a soul. You can't maintain that the soul is above chemicals. It is not separate. In which case it remains part of the physical world.
The fact that chemicals (especially drugs) can influence your "choices", and to some extent control them, indicates that this soul does not give free will either.
I also don't understand your analogy.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau K"Free Will" is generally poorly defined. I don't really know what people mean when they talk about it.
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?
Law is not about punishing those who are accountable, but rather it's purpose (in my view) is keeping society running smoothly and modifying asocial behavior; and in general, maximizing good (the utilitarian definition of good).
Our thoughts are not completely dictated from inheretance. Other environmental factors are involved as well.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI acknowledge this however i refuse to believe there is something above the environment, inheritance and chemicals which can ever make a choice.
Our thoughts are not completely dictated from inheretance. Other environmental factors are involved as well.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThose "strong" arguments appeal to the intellectually shallow such as myself.
This, however, is rather poor. I couldn't find any solid arguments therein. Would you care to outline them for me?
As an additional comment on both, it's striking how clear thought and clear writing go hand in hand. The Ben Best writing is quite poor, as are the ideas he attempts to express.
On a side note: I skimmed through it in the wee hours of the morning -- a time when I thrive on small-minded incoherent thought.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThe problem with this essay is that i am disputing that there is ever a choice from which we can presuppose free will.
[b]I suppose the onus is on you to demonstrate where free will occurs because that would require you to show me where a choice cannot be attributed to an occurrence in the brain, an influence in the environment, genetic factors.
Fair enough. I prefer to take this problem from a philosophical perspective and as I'm too lazy and rushed I'll plagiarise ...[text shortened]... p://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html
* http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand3.htm[/b]
I am also not advocating determinism in the strict sense that their can only be one result for every cause and that everyones thoughts and actions are determined. There is a myriad of different actions that can result of from the same conditions in the brain and environment according to QM. However there is no choice. just as an free electron has no choice as to which way it my go.
The conclusion is also rather ambiguous, "it is not a proof of free will, but it kind of is."
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KIf there is no free will then you are not a better chess player than those of us in the basement ratings-wise, since you did not have the free will to choose your moves and strategize.
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?
How did you determine that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions as the result of inheritance?
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by reader1107Not necessarily. Some brains are more efficient than others that's all. Do you not remember the games that you've had before and strategise based upon memory of similar situations? Do you not plan ahead, working out all possible strategies? A computer can play chess, and normally win, without free will.
If there is no free will then you are not a better chess player than those of us in the basement ratings-wise, since you did not have the free will to choose your moves and strategize.
How did you determine that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions as the result of inheritance?