This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind
Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.
This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind
Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.
I don't buy that argument at all...sorry.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind
Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.
Just because you don't like the way something looks from a value standpoint doesn't mean you get to decide it can't be that way.
I'm tempted to throw that right back at you. You are assuming that genetics and/or environment are all the possible causal factors there is. Which is pretty bold given all of our lack of knowledge how a lot of that stuff works. Further, it assumes clear-cut causalities in all cases A leads to B etc. This is also a bold assumption.
I'd say the main reason not to poopoo free will, is that we know far too little to in any meaningful way ascertain determinism. As I outlined before, science in it's nature, ONLY looks for deterministic factors, and indeed can only prove deterministic laws. (If results vary under same circumstances, it is a non-find or design-flaw, even if the results are real enough in their inconsistency) Which makes determinism look like the only way for scientists, although it is essentially a tautology.
Uncertainty and lack of knowledge should still at this point make keeping the argument open the far more sensible option than pre-concluding out of scientific and psychological hubris. That's my main point.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"The word that allows yes, the word that makes no possible.
The word that puts the free in freedom and takes the obligation out of love.
The word that throws a window open after the final door is closed.
The word upon which all adventure, all exhilaration, all meaning, all honor depends.
The word that fires evolution's motor of mud.
The word that the cocoon whispers to the caterpillar.
The word that molecules recite before bonding.
The word that separates that which is dead from that which is living.
The word no mirror can turn around.
In the beginning was the word and that word was...
...CHOICE"
-Tom Robbins, Still Life with Woodpecker
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind
Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.
I don't buy that argument at all...sorry.
so.... whats your rebutle, do you even have one?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just think that sounds like something you'd talk about at 2 in the morning with college buddies after a night of indulging. Choices will always be made based on every series of previous choices that lead up to that point. There are no vacuum choices, as that would be an impossibility. The fact that choices are made after other events have been determined has nothing to do with whether or not free will is real or not. It's not a logical impossibility...it's a quirky little play on words.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
You either believe a person is their brain/body + environment, or you believe in the supernatural.
Saying that the amazing things we accomplish can't be done with our brains alone is selling biology a little short.
I believe a person is brain/body + environment + free will. Decisions I make can vary throughout a typical day depending on my mood, energy level, daily tasks, etc. And of course, environment and external factors will also alter my decision making process. Adapt on the fly is my motto.
Actually, that's a pretty bad motto. I'm going to work on that . . .
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just think that sounds like something you'd talk about at 2 in the morning with college buddies after a night of indulging. Choices will always be made based on every series of previous choices that lead up to that point. There are no vacuum choices, as that would be an impossibility. The fact that choices are made after other events have been determined has nothing to do with whether or not free will is real or not. It's not a logical impossibility...it's a quirky little play on words.
Its not a play on words... I think you need to do a little studying into what determinism is and also look in to neuroscience which suggests your consciousness is not free.
First off lets clarify freewill;
Freewill; The ability for an individual to consciously make a "free choice" regarding a course of action from a limited number of alternatives based on the preceding casual stimuli.
For a choice to qualify as free it:
1) must not be determined purely be preceding stimuli.
2) must not be random unless a random result is a possible course of action that can be purposely chosen.
a random choice does not favor free will since it is basically a roll of the dice.
Its not a play on words... I think you need to do a little studying into what determinism is and also look in to neuroscience which suggests your consciousness is not free.
First off lets clarify freewill;
Freewill; The ability for an individual to consciously make a "free choice" regarding a course of action from a limited number of alternatives based on the preceding casual stimuli.
For a choice to qualify as free it:
1) must not be determined purely be preceding stimuli.
2) must not be random unless a random result is a possible course of action that can be purposely chosen.
a random choice does not favor free will since it is basically a roll of the dice.
Condition 1 is pretty easy to meet and envision.(or rather very hard to prove that it is purely directly only caused by the stimuli) Most likely choices also involve a touch of randomness. (People act out of habit but may also act squarely and deliberately against it at some times)
So rather than an impossibility I find both these conditions plausible to be met, even simultaneously.
And neuroscience have nowhere proved general philosophical determinism. Neuroscience looks exclusively for determined connections between substances and activity in the brain. Ambiguous connections will be seen is disproved by definition. Thus fueling a support for determinism in neuroscientists. You only ever find what you look for...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I have not read all of this but my argument would be that HeidiJam's take only considers what the experience and DNA of the individual is--but the experience of other people come's into play when making choices. Do we not listen to the advice and experience of others and can/has it not changed our own opinions or decision-making process? Words like influence, persuasion, conflict would all be non-existent if I am understanding her point that we have pre-decided based on something that has already happened.
Its not a play on words... I think you need to do a little studying into what determinism is and also look in to neuroscience which suggests your consciousness is not free.
First off lets clarify freewill;
Freewill; The ability for an individual to consciously make a "free choice" regarding a course of action from a limited number of alternatives based on the preceding casual stimuli.
For a choice to qualify as free it:
1) must not be determined purely be preceding stimuli.
2) must not be random unless a random result is a possible course of action that can be purposely chosen.
a random choice does not favor free will since it is basically a roll of the dice.
Condition 1 is pretty easy to meet and envision.(or rather very hard to prove that it is purely directly only caused by the stimuli) Most likely choices also involve a touch of randomness. (People act out of habit but may also act squarely and deliberately against it at some times)
So rather than an impossibility I find both these conditions plausible to be met, even simultaneously.
And neuroscience have nowhere proved general philosophical determinism. Neuroscience looks exclusively for determined connections between substances and activity in the brain. Ambiguous connections will be seen is disproved by definition. Thus fueling a support for determinism in neuroscientists. You only ever find what you look for...
Peace
Dan
I don't think any choices involve randomnesss, if they do that certainly shows no free will. Habits are not randomness, they are a will or desire to continue to do something. Which is part of our genetic nature. Several studies have shown consciousness to follow neurological activation in cases of choice. In other words, the brain indicates it has made a decision before the individual is aware of what decision they "chose".
Please see the video, and what is your arguement for free will... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624Sw ... r_embedded
I have not read all of this but my argument would be that HeidiJam's take only considers what the experience and DNA of the individual is--but the experience of other people come's into play when making choices. Do we not listen to the advice and experience of others and can/has it not changed our own opinions or decision-making process? Words like influence, persuasion, conflict would all be non-existent if I am understanding her point that we have pre-decided based on something that has already happened.
You are not understand my point, I reference internal and external enviroment in several of my posts.
I don't think any choices involve randomnesss, if they do that certainly shows no free will. Habits are not randomness, they are a will or desire to continue to do something. Which is part of our genetic nature. Several studies have shown consciousness to follow neurological activation in cases of choice. In other words, the brain indicates it has made a decision before the individual is aware of what decision they "chose".
Please see the video, and what is your arguement for free will... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624Sw ... r_embedded
That this little experiment doesn't conclude anything on the matter, frankly. It does indicate that we may be acting a bit on autopilot in certain situations. (As for example when tediously and repetitively following a clock on a screen). Further that brain activation happens a bit earlier is neither any conclusive proof. Rather than evidence, this is indicies that has to be researched a lot further before concluding that everything is predetermined (Which IS a spectacularly bold claim needing spectacular evidence)
But, after these caveats, this may be an indication that we do follow patterns and habits a bit more than we think in everyday life. Which more strengthens my soft determinism position. What is not in any way, shape or form proven here, is that this is how it works in every "natural" instance of thought. It is only seen in an extremely simplistic way in a narrowly defined experiment. The door is wide open for some influence that can be called free will in there, and verily be part of that "predetermination" that happens. It may be rarely present, but it is in no way disproven. However this is evidence that detracts from a strong free will position.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind
Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.
I don't buy that argument at all...sorry.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I'm tempted to throw that right back at you. You are assuming that genetics and/or environment are all the possible causal factors there is. Which is pretty bold given all of our lack of knowledge how a lot of that stuff works. Further, it assumes clear-cut causalities in all cases A leads to B etc. This is also a bold assumption.
I'd say the main reason not to poopoo free will, is that we know far too little to in any meaningful way ascertain determinism. As I outlined before, science in it's nature, ONLY looks for deterministic factors, and indeed can only prove deterministic laws. (If results vary under same circumstances, it is a non-find or design-flaw, even if the results are real enough in their inconsistency) Which makes determinism look like the only way for scientists, although it is essentially a tautology.
Uncertainty and lack of knowledge should still at this point make keeping the argument open the far more sensible option than pre-concluding out of scientific and psychological hubris. That's my main point.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The word that puts the free in freedom and takes the obligation out of love.
The word that throws a window open after the final door is closed.
The word upon which all adventure, all exhilaration, all meaning, all honor depends.
The word that fires evolution's motor of mud.
The word that the cocoon whispers to the caterpillar.
The word that molecules recite before bonding.
The word that separates that which is dead from that which is living.
The word no mirror can turn around.
In the beginning was the word and that word was...
...CHOICE"
-Tom Robbins, Still Life with Woodpecker
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just think that sounds like something you'd talk about at 2 in the morning with college buddies after a night of indulging. Choices will always be made based on every series of previous choices that lead up to that point. There are no vacuum choices, as that would be an impossibility. The fact that choices are made after other events have been determined has nothing to do with whether or not free will is real or not. It's not a logical impossibility...it's a quirky little play on words.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Actually, that's a pretty bad motto. I'm going to work on that . . .
First off lets clarify freewill;
Freewill; The ability for an individual to consciously make a "free choice" regarding a course of action from a limited number of alternatives based on the preceding casual stimuli.
For a choice to qualify as free it:
1) must not be determined purely be preceding stimuli.
2) must not be random unless a random result is a possible course of action that can be purposely chosen.
a random choice does not favor free will since it is basically a roll of the dice.
Condition 1 is pretty easy to meet and envision.(or rather very hard to prove that it is purely directly only caused by the stimuli) Most likely choices also involve a touch of randomness. (People act out of habit but may also act squarely and deliberately against it at some times)
So rather than an impossibility I find both these conditions plausible to be met, even simultaneously.
And neuroscience have nowhere proved general philosophical determinism. Neuroscience looks exclusively for determined connections between substances and activity in the brain. Ambiguous connections will be seen is disproved by definition. Thus fueling a support for determinism in neuroscientists. You only ever find what you look for...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Please see the video, and what is your arguement for free will...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624Sw ... r_embedded
That this little experiment doesn't conclude anything on the matter, frankly. It does indicate that we may be acting a bit on autopilot in certain situations. (As for example when tediously and repetitively following a clock on a screen). Further that brain activation happens a bit earlier is neither any conclusive proof. Rather than evidence, this is indicies that has to be researched a lot further before concluding that everything is predetermined (Which IS a spectacularly bold claim needing spectacular evidence)
But, after these caveats, this may be an indication that we do follow patterns and habits a bit more than we think in everyday life. Which more strengthens my soft determinism position. What is not in any way, shape or form proven here, is that this is how it works in every "natural" instance of thought. It is only seen in an extremely simplistic way in a narrowly defined experiment. The door is wide open for some influence that can be called free will in there, and verily be part of that "predetermination" that happens. It may be rarely present, but it is in no way disproven. However this is evidence that detracts from a strong free will position.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965