Free will does not exist!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't blame me. I didn't have the capacity to choose to construct a stronger analogy, nor the capacity to choose to refrain from making such an offensive post.

In fact, I sense that I'm about to call you a bonehead for taking such a ridiculous stance on free will, and I fear that I don't have capacity to choose to refrain from this course of action.

You are a bonehead.

Sorry, but it wasn't my choice to call you that.

You have the capacity to understand my arguments. Even if it is not your choice. I dont understand how my arguments are rediculous. The fact that you attack me and not my arguments suggests that you are the bone head.
You have obviously not read previous posts that is why you do not understand.

"choice" is part of the deliberation process. If a certain action yields a greater value then another then it might be "chosen" in accordance with your "programming" (caused by genetic, environment influences.)
I would prefer a logical argument over vitriol in response.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
That consciousness is *causally dependent* on brain chemisty does not imply that consciousness *is* brain chemistry.

That the movement of a car is *causally dependent* on fuel does not imply that the movementof the car *is* fuel, does it?

Indeed, if Y is causally dependent upon X, then Y cannot be the same thing as X, because that would be equival ...[text shortened]... y that, formally speaking, your error is to confuse causal reduction with ontological reduction.

I do not believe consciousness is *causally dependent* on chemicals.

Consciousness- awareness of your environment.

Awareness of your environment is achieved by detecting chemicals in the enviornments or using light or whatever. This process is chemical. Hence, consciousness is chemical.

I think you have confused consciousness with intelliegence or something like that.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Consciousness -- which is created by chemicals -- is something that
affects the decisions we make -- which are governed by chemicals.

I would argue that, once consciousness is achieved, free will (or at
least constrained choice, as articulated by Vistesd) comes into existence.

That is, because consciousness affects the chemicals that result in
the a ...[text shortened]... and free will.

I'm just sort of airing this out, and would like your opinion.

Nemesio

That is, because consciousness affects the chemicals that result in
the actions we take, it goes from the dog's wagging its tail to the tail's
wagging the dog.

Can you justify that point. I also ask you to define consciousness and intelligence in the way you are using them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
My concern is only 'will' at the moment, and free will to be more
precise. The universe or the environment is filled with things that
push and pull on us, just as they push and pull upon animals, upon
creatures great and small, it is what it is, so how do we look at
will? Evolutions only part in this discussion would be limited to just
those that belie ...[text shortened]...
defeated by whatever is binding them, the struggle is still there
the will in action.
Kelly

Just give up. If you refuse to read the entire post you're wasting your time.

Originally posted by Conrau K

I would prefer a logical argument over vitriol in response.

Regrettably, I do not have the free will to arrest the vitriol that flows from my fingers as they type. I sit helpless as they pick at the predestined keys, able only to view them in horror as my eyeballs have been fixed upon them. Oh, mercy, would this sight be taken from before my eyes!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Regrettably, I do not have the free will to arrest the vitriol that flows from my fingers as they type. I sit helpless as they pick at the predestined keys, able only to view them in horror as my eyeballs have been fixed upon them. Oh, mercy, would this sight be taken from before my eyes!

I believe that there is a will. But i dispute that it is free. You might deride this belief because its obscure and its implications counter-intuitve but unless you refute the chemical argument of the will your belief it is entirely valid. I believe that your "choice" to satire my arguments is not of free chioce. It is part of your deliberation process which identifies the most valuable way to refute my arguments (even if somewhat puerile).

Originally posted by Nemesio
Consciousness -- which is created by chemicals -- is something that
affects the decisions we make -- which are governed by chemicals.

I would argue that, once consciousness is achieved, free will (or at
least constrained choice, as articulated by Vistesd) comes into existence.

That is, because consciousness affects the chemicals that result in
the a ...[text shortened]... and free will.

I'm just sort of airing this out, and would like your opinion.

Nemesio

Personally, I think only those that believe in evolution can accept that
AI will ever happen. If you just hook it up right...
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just give up. If you refuse to read the entire post you're wasting your time.

I read your post, your point?
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not believe consciousness is *causally dependent* on chemicals.

Consciousness- awareness of your environment.

Awareness of your environment is achieved by detecting chemicals in the enviornments or using light or whatever. This process is chemical. Hence, consciousness is chemical.

I think you have confused consciousness with intelliegence or something like that.

Really, you don't believe consciousness is causally dependent on chemistry?

By *chemistry* here I more properly mean neural physical substrate, and the chemistry and biology thereby entailed.

Surely, you don't question that consciousness is causally dependent on this physical substrate?

Believe me, if I were to fiddle with your brain, by altering its chemistry or biology, your state of consciousness would alter concomitantly.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe that there is a will. But i dispute that it is free. You might deride this belief because its obscure and its implications counter-intuitve but unless you refute the chemical argument of the will your belief it is entirely valid. I believe that your "choice" to satire my arguments is not of free chioce. It is part of your deliberation process which identifies the most valuable way to refute my arguments (even if somewhat puerile).

Here's another argument for free will.

Consider the two claims:

1) "I did X because I found the arguments in favor of doing do reasonable."
2) "I did X because my brain made me do it."

One contention has been that these two claims cannot be reconciled.

The idea is that, for 1) to be true, 2) must be false, because if it were not, then one's action would be compelled by inexorable laws of nature to occur, which would mean that the objective rationality of the action would be beside the point, merely some kind of post hoc rationalization for doing something one was, in fact, compelled to do.

In other words, reason presupposes freedom. Unless your mind can freely accept or reject arguments for courses of action based on criteria, rather than being mechanically forced to arrive at particular conclusions in advance of doing particular things, you cannot be reasonable.

However, we do believe we are reasonable. Hence, we cannot believe in determinism.

It's an interesting argument. But I can already think of one objection.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Here's another argument for free will.

Consider the two claims:

1) "I did X because I found the arguments in favor of doing do reasonable."
2) "I did X because my brain made me do it."

One contention has been that these two claims cannot be reconciled.

The idea is that, for 1) to be true, 2) must be false, because if it were not, then one ...[text shortened]... n determinism.

It's an interesting argument. But I can already think of one objection.

1) "I did X because I found the arguments in favor of doing do reasonable."

A computer might do the same except with less sophistication and complicated proicesses. Reason does not presuppose freedom. Reason might be explained as the product of genetic determinacy and the environment.

Also, how would you define reason? Some people's reason might be completely unreasonable. Think of the mentally ill. Does their "reason" imply freedom?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Regrettably, I do not have the free will to arrest the vitriol that flows from my fingers as they type. I sit helpless as they pick at the predestined keys, able only to view them in horror as my eyeballs have been fixed upon them. Oh, mercy, would this sight be taken from before my eyes!

You don't understand the concept of free will. If you do not have free will, it does not mean you can be forced to act against your will. You always act according to your will - that's not the issue. The issue is whether your will is itself free from external dictates. Clearly your vitriolic posts are done according to the dictates of your own will, but that does not make your will free. It does not mean you can change your will and be a mensch. You are who you are - a product of your natural and spiritual environment.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Really, you don't believe consciousness is causally dependent on chemistry?

By *chemistry* here I more properly mean neural physical substrate, and the chemistry and biology thereby entailed.

Surely, you don't question that consciousness is causally dependent on this physical substrate?

Believe me, if I were to fiddle with your brain, by altering its chemistry or biology, your state of consciousness would alter concomitantly.

Really, you don't believe consciousness is causally dependent on chemistry?

Not, in the sense you do. I argue that consciousness is chemicals.

Believe me, if I were to fiddle with your brain, by altering its chemistry or biology, your state of consciousness would alter concomitantly.

I have been maintaining that argument for some time. No need to repeat.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Personally, I think only those that believe in evolution can accept that
AI will ever happen. If you just hook it up right...
Kelly

I think it's inevitable. Some day they will build a computer which will appear, for all intents and purpose, to have self awareness and emotions. They will probably star in the next episode of Star Wars.

But it won't have a soul. It will have all the outward trapping of a person, accept that it will be far more intelligent. All that will be missing is a soul.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I read your post, your point?
Kelly

Well lets examine your "interference means occupying the same space" theory.

Well, if i insert a virus into your computer, am i not interfering with you?
I should think (and hope) that we are not occupying the same space.

Interference is when something subverts the process of another thing. That is what will happen if i give you hallucinogens.

Secondly, this free will has been said to exist outside the physical realms (because if it didn't it would be determined [in the loosest sense]). However, the fact that the will can be affected by physics and chemistry implies that it does not trasncend the physical world.

I also ask you, who exactly has free will according to your theistic logic.