- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by vistesdActually i can find no way of disputing this at the moment. My retort to this (although obscurely written) opinion in another post was rather feeble. I suppose that the nature of a predisposition is that it doesn't exactly predetermine behaviour, accountability can then also be filled almost to the brim with references to the environment. Your third point suggests that there is still room for some free will (albeit limited, kind of similar to saying you can only have A or B out of all the letters of the alphabet). My argument to this is that you can't have partial free will but this is rather poor. I also continue to assert that with accountability so diminished, free will begins to lose relevance. But then
(3) Within very strict constraints and conditions, we still nevertheless have some ability to choose; but because the ability to choose is so constrained, and because the conditions of constraint are so complex, the question of accountability is a best a thorny one and difficult to determine.
This last possibility seems the most interesting to me. I ...[text shortened]... nst this one—yet.*
*Although I sense the ball spinning more and more slowly around the rim...
this still implies the existence of something that transcends the material universe, which i cannot supoort either. In short i will have to think about a bit longer.
15 Jan 06
To Conrau:
The Ayn Rand arguments that Hal cited seem to be the strongest philosophical position contra yours. It also seems akin to Schopenhauer’s argument for the existence of the will.
However, Coletti’s comments about “psychological illusion,” as I interpret them, would argue that Rand’s “direct observation,” etc. would really just be part of the illusion.
If our very sense of deliberation is part of the illusion, then it would seem to be part of the “architecture” of our brain/mind, and thus not subject to proof or disproof, since we would be using that very architecture to do so.
Nevertheless, in that case, I can’t at the moment think of any argument to oppose to the bio-chemical and physiological evidence you’ve laid out without invoking either God or a “ghost in the machine.”
Does that about sum it up thus far?
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KOkay, I just saw your response before I made my last post.
Actually i can find no way of disputing this at the moment. My retort to this (although obscurely written) opinion in another post was rather feeble. I suppose that the nature of a predisposition is that it doesn't exactly predetermine behaviour, accountability can then also be filled almost to the brim with references to the environment. Your third point s ...[text shortened]... ial universe, which i cannot supoort either. In short i will have to think about a bit longer.
I don't like that phrase "partial free will" either, which is why I used the phrase "constrained choice" from my economics background.
I'm also thinking about this from a Zen Buddhist perspective...
You've really got my wheels turning! Good Stuff!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by vistesdI agree with Coletti's "psychological illusion." A consequence of their being no free will, is that any experience of it (in the sense one believes it is an experience of it) must be an illusion. However i am not certain of deliberation is an illusion. A computer may evaluate a chess diagram and then subsequently predict who will win. However, although it deliberated on who will win (in accordance wirh its program), the choice is what presupposes the existence of free will. When at the restaurant and you delierated on what you preferred, it is the choice that would demonstrate an exercise of free will. I argue that there is no choice. That the "iterative function of the brain" also entails the "choice" with the implication that there is no chioce ( because i.e. you might be programmed to select whatever smells closest to fish hence, you deliberate and select what closely resembles fish in odour and select it. There is no choice though, hence, no free will).
To Conrau:
The Ayn Rand arguments that Hal cited seem to be the strongest philosophical position contra yours. It also seems akin to Schopenhauer’s argument for the existence of the will.
[b]However, Coletti’s comments about “psychological illusion,” as I interpret them, would argue that Rand’s “direct observation,” etc. would really just be part ...[text shortened]... without invoking either God or a “ghost in the machine.”
Does that about sum it up thus far?[/b]
However this requires that the brain (and its relevant chemicals involved) dictate the "choice." This assumption i think is what has really offended people.
Yes, then i believe you have summed up so far.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K…the choice is what presupposes the existence of free will. When at the restaurant and you deliberated on what you preferred, it is the choice that would demonstrate an exercise of free will. I argue that there is no choice.
I agree with Coletti's "psychological illusion." A consequence of their being no free will, is that any experience of it (in the sense one believes it is an experience of it) must be an illusion. However i am not certain of deliberation is an illusion. A computer may evaluate a chess diagram and then subsequently predict who will win. However, although it d k is what has really offended people.
Yes, then i believe you have summed up so far.
Okay, that’s helpful.
Let me throw this argument at you (it’s one that I thoroughly dislike in other contexts): The number of conscious “choices” that I think I make during the day, and the deliberations that I seem to go through in making them, seems so complex—oops! I’ll let that stand, just so you can see my thinking out loud, but I see now that your argument that the deliberations may not be illusory, only the idea of choice is (essentially de-linking them) already answers that objection…
I’ve printed out several articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on these issues, which I am still reading:
Here is an excerpt from the one on Free Will that I thought you might find interesting (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/):
“The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychoilogical structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems. O'Connor (forthcoming) argues that the data adduced by Libet and Wegner wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions.”
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
16 Jan 06
Although a highly charged interpretation (that is liable to erroneous measurements in the experiment) it does have some merit however I still believe people will argue that their remains some nominal amount of free will (that might “veto certain actions that are initiated by unconscious psychoilogical structures&rdquo😉. Although intuitively reluctant to accept this “soul” I find it difficult to disprove concerning free will.
I think the reason why most people object to the argument against free will is because it expounds that people are no longer responsible for their actions. If so one can hardly describe Hitler as evil (or at least evil by choice).
Or that their success is due to their perseverance, but more as the culmination of a myriad of events which they can exert no power over. Secondly, if there is no free will, then there is a greater possibility that God is responsible for all evil (assuming He has free will as well!).
I have an interesting (or at least I feel it interesting) question to those who argue for free will, or its rapprochement with biological phenomenon, that is: if there exists some form of free will, does everyone have it? And given that the distinctions between animals and all life forms are biological (and you vehemently deny that this “soul” is biological) do other life forms have it? And given that the distinctions between living and non-living are vague (consider viruses), do non-living things have free will?
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWell the problem there is we as individuals have no way of
I agree that these sorts of things go on all the time, but I don’t agree that it is what God wants us to do.
To look at the actions of those who use religion for evil purposes and say that there is no God because of them is foolish. Ask yourself if those guys are following their scripture. You’ll probably find that in most cases they are not.
knowing a priori who is the saint and who is the devil in disguise.
There are very charismatic people who could charm the skin off
a snake but inside they ARE snakes. So do you think good can come
in spite of the fact the leader is a snake in the grass, out for a good
lay and lots of bucks but hides it well? So the underlings do all sorts
of good, feed the poor, transport political refugees, etc. Does that
make up for the snake eyed leader?
17 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWell the problem there is we as individuals have no way of
Well the problem there is we as individuals have no way of
knowing a priori who is the saint and who is the devil in disguise.
There are very charismatic people who could charm the skin off
a snake but inside they ARE snakes. So do you think good can come
in spite of the fact the leader is a snake in the grass, out for a good
lay and lots of bucks ...[text shortened]... ood, feed the poor, transport political refugees, etc. Does that
make up for the snake eyed leader?
knowing a priori who is the saint and who is the devil in disguise.
There are very charismatic people who could charm the skin off
a snake but inside they ARE snakes.
I only agree with you on this to a degree. Yes, there are plenty of wolves in sheep’s clothing out there. Over in the middle east for example there are entire societies that are born and raised into extremist religions so that the dictators can all be billionaires. But I don’t believe that it is impossible as you claim to tell the good from the bad. Most of the time the nut jobs go after the young and impressionable.
So do you think good can come in spite of the fact the leader is a snake in the grass, out for a good lay and lots of bucks but hides it well? So the underlings do all sorts of good, feed the poor, transport political refugees, etc. Does that make up for the snake eyed leader?
Nobody except the Christ can pay for the sins of another. If an evil preacher gets people to do good for his own selfish reasons, he will still have to answer to God (and hopefully the authorities) for what he does. I don’t think it’s fair though to judge an organization that’s 2 billion strong by the actions of a few.
Have you read the scripture much? You sound kind of like you got your view of Christianity from the news.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KEvil is that which causes harm. I also believe it’s a choice.
Chess Express i would really like to know what you think is evil. If you have been following the arguments on this thread it might even be god.
I’m afraid I’ve lost interest in the subject of this thread. I know people like to get technical, but science hasn’t shown that we have no free will. Personally I think a little bit of common sense will do. Though many factors influence our decisions, ultimately the choice is ours.
It’s of coarse your choice whether you accept this or not. 😉
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressNo, its not your choice that you disagree. And itnot mine that i disagree with
Evil is that which causes harm. I also believe it’s a choice.
I’m afraid I’ve lost interest in the subject of this thread. I know people like to get technical, but science hasn’t shown that we have no free will. Personally I think a little bit of common sense will do. Though many factors influence our decisions, ultimately the choice is ours.
It’s of coarse your choice whether you accept this or not. 😉
you.😉
19 Jan 06
Conrau K,
I've been giving a great deal of thought to your thesis -- that free
will does not exist -- and have some thoughts, but first I have to
ask you a question: do you feel that consciousness exists,
in particular, self-awareness?
Be careful how you answer this, because I want you to note that
both of these things are the products of chemical processes just like
the results of what appears to be free will. Which ever answer you
give, could you give a little elaboration on why you feel that way?
Thanks,
Nemesio
19 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KYou espouse a position that denies free will.
And also, when does a person develop free will? Is it as two gametes, or a zygote, a fully developed child or an adult.
Do you do this in accordance with or contrary to your perceptual experiences?
That is, do you perceive that you make choices, while intellectually believing that those choices are illusions? Or do you actually perceive that you have no free will?
As for me, I perceive that I have free will. The hypothesis that it is an illusion is an interesting one, but it is one that is epistemically unjustifiable and thus I cannot believe it. If it were, what would distinguish it from any other "it's an illusion" explanation about things that I experience? Am I justified in believing that I can't really speak English, and that I merely suffer the illusion that I can? Am I justified in believing that I need not eat in order to persist, that my hunger and perception of a need for nourishment is merely an illusion?
If everything that I experience points to one conclusion, even there is an alternative possible conclusion, I must either accept the conclusion that my experience points to or believe things arbitrarily. How long will a human being who believes things arbitrarily, who believes any given "it's an illusion" theory, survive?
If you would only believe some "it's an illusion" theories, what distinguishes free will from others that you would reject?
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCan you specify what you believe when you say you believe you have free will?
You espouse a position that denies free will.
Do you do this in accordance with or contrary to your perceptual experiences?
That is, do you perceive that you make choices, while intellectually believing that those choices are illusions? Or do you actually perceive that you have no free will?
As for me, I perceive that I have free will. The ...[text shortened]... an illusion" theories, what distinguishes free will from others that you would reject?
If you cannot specify what you believe, can you really have grounds for believing in it?
If free will cannot be specified in principle, can it exist?