I know, as you've been posting here tonight you're relying on some sort of system of..of whatever... yes, consciousness does prevail.
WITH instinct.
Instinct, well that's another can of worms.
It's actually debatable wether or not an infant has "consciousness" because without Language, it's really hard to speak covertly to one's self.
Can you please define consciousness for me? Because the term is really subjective.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, i won't define consciouness, not tonight, instinct worked.
Peace, bro. I'm off to enjoy FinsburyParkCarrots and his performance of a night ago.
Instinct worked?
Perhaps you don't fully understand instinct. Or perhaps you are thinking of it as it were 50 years ago. Children do not have "Instinct", they have sensorimotor functions that they learn about and learn how to use. Such as screaming draws attention from the care-giver.
Seriously. That is learned. Instinct is an evolutionary deal. Animals adapt to life faster than Humans because they have these definite instincts. It takes a Human being almost 20 years to become "Instinctual". The feeling of hunger is not really an instinct as much as it is a physiological requirement.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Additionally que-barum, instinct implies something opposite to free-will.
"Some sociobiologists and ethologists have attempted to comprehend human and animal social behavior in terms of instincts. Psychoanalysts have stated that instinct refers to human motivational forces (such as sex and aggression), sometimes represented as life instinct and death instinct. This use of the term motivational forces has mainly been replaced by the term instinctual drives.
Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning.
Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: altruism, disgust, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight" and "subjugate or be subjugated".
Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behaviour present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This notion is present in many introductory textbooks (Sociology: An Introduction, Ian Robertson, Worth Publishers, 1989), but is still hotly debated."
So, in Humans "Instincts" are simple sensorimotor functions. Or motivational drives. Still debatable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Additionally que-barum, instinct implies something opposite to free-will.
"Some sociobiologists and ethologists have attempted to comprehend human and animal social behavior in terms of instincts. Psychoanalysts have stated that instinct refers to human motivational forces (such as sex and aggression), sometimes represented as life instinct and death instinct. This use of the term motivational forces has mainly been replaced by the term instinctual drives.
Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning.
Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: altruism, disgust, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight" and "subjugate or be subjugated".
Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behaviour present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This notion is present in many introductory textbooks (Sociology: An Introduction, Ian Robertson, Worth Publishers, 1989), but is still hotly debated."
So, in Humans "Instincts" are simple sensorimotor functions. Or motivational drives. Still debatable.
I know we're friends. This being UNCONCIOUS shit don't cut it.
You need music, and I recommend it right now, as loud as you can get it!!!!
I know we're friends. This being UNCONCIOUS shit don't cut it.
You need music, and I recommend it right now, as loud as you can get it!!!!
Who said Unconscious? I simply redefined consciousness as you know it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You need music, and I recommend it right now, as loud as you can get it!!!!
I'm busy watching a panel of scientists of different disciplines discuss consciousness.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Boy, this thread took a serious dive.
I'll refrain from making comments, and leave this thread alone now.
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
Toward a Science of Consciousness 2006 hold plenary sessions in the Leo Rich Theatre of the Tucson Convention Center (TCC). Concurrent sessions, poster sessions and Pre-Conference Workshops will be held in Meeting Rooms of the TCC and in several ballrooms of the Hotel Arizona. They are located on the same plaza in downtown Tucson.
Tucson Convention Center
260 S. Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona
See map below. The TCC is about 15 to 20 minutes by car/taxi from Tucson International Airport. Note the Radisson Hotel
(as in Radisson Parking on map) is now the Hotel Arizona, the official Conference Hotel.
My bad, the university isn't running this anymore.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Damn, Susan Blackmore did a conference today and I missed it.
Dr Susan Blackmore is a psychologist and writer whose research
on consciousness, memes, and anomalous experiences has been
published in over sixty academic papers, as well as book chapters,
reviews and popular articles. She has a regular piece in the Guardian,
and often appears on radio and television. Her book The Meme
Machine (1999) has been translated into 12 other languages and
more recent books include a textbook Consciousness:
An Introduction (2003) and Conversations on Consciousness (2005).
She has been practicing Zen for twenty years.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Most of us believe implicitly in free will. In some ways it appears straightforward: I want to write this sentence, I will my fingers to type on the keypad. Voila. However, most people have not sought to define precisely what free will is, or to understand the complexities inherent in these two short words. This essay will seek to understand the meaning of free will and to explore whether or not it exists.
Some Working Definitions
I want to start by distinguishing "free will" from other attributes. Although free will is often used in connection with one taking an action, the capacity to act does not itself establish that one has free will. Acts can be caused by external forces (I push you so you fall) or can be unconscious (talking in your sleep, or even snoring). Consciousness and the ability to remember and even to learn are also often associated with the idea of free will. However, neither of these attributes equates with free will, for many animals that we do not view as having free will can be conscious and can learn. Here is a tougher distinction to make -- "voluntary activity." I want to sign this document, or have steak for dinner, and I do so. What voluntary activity means is simply that I am doing what I want to do, without physical coercion. To put a finer point on it, I am doing something that I want to do more than I do not want to do it. So I might choose the steak because I want to eat it more that evening than I want the salad on the menu. The important thing to note when it comes to choosing a course of action is that the fact an animal makes a choice does not explain why he made it. The question this essay addresses is whether our choices are caused completely by internal and external forces or whether we are free to choose a course of action regardless of those forces.
A final few definitions are important before moving on. A "determinant" is something that has a role in causing, or determining an outcome. For example, heat is a significant determinant in forcing something to boil. Newton's third law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is, in essence, a statement of determinism.
One who views all things, including human actions, as resulting solely and exclusively from factors or determinants is known as a "determinist." Put another way, a determinist believes that, although one makes voluntary, conscious decisions, those decisions are required by his unique, myriad determinants. As sophisticated and complex animals, humans have determinants ranging from genes to upbringing, culture, current situation, unconscious activity, past experiences and, as observed by Peter Gill, conscious thought. On the other hand, one who believes in the existence of free will holds that a person's choices are self-determined. In other words, one can make a choice to act a certain way regardless of, or despite his or her determinants. Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) defines "free will" as "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." (emphasis added). I call one who believes in free will a "me-ist," for this view is about the triumph of "me" over all causes. Others term this view "libertarian," for it promotes that idea one is at liberty to act as he will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
On With the Hunt
On the most basic level, what goes into making you act? The search begins with the premise that all of your faculties, senses and perceptive powers reside in your brain and nervous system. This seems a safe premise, for we are no longer capable of making choices or taking actions that could be considered by anyone an expression of our will when our brains no longer function. We are inert when dead.
Each of us is born with a brain that has its unique and innate proclivities, capacities, strengths and weaknesses. The brain has an unconscious portion that regulates at the least such things as digestion, heartbeat and respiration. It also regulates hormone production. The chemicals and electricity in the primitive part of our brains react to sensory experiences, both on a hard-wired level (suck on nipple) and as we learn from experience (biting leads to an unpleasant response). It is likely that childhood traumas have a lasting effect on the unconscious, and even on brain chemistry. Factors such as brain chemistry, hormones and unconscious memories that may be stirred up by present day situations all have an effect on our feelings, thoughts and behaviors -- effects that in many (perhaps most) cases may be unknown to the person experiencing them. These factors are not within our control and certainly are not the result of our own deliberate making.
Unconscious factors affect our decision making process in both large and small ways. How many times do we think we could have made a better decision but for the strong emotions or stress we were feeling in the moment? On a simpler level, the phone number we forget today but remember tomorrow is in our brain, but unconscious for the time being. This fact may play a role in forcing us to take the time to pick up a phone book, or to simply skip a call we otherwise would have made.
Much of the "higher" parts of our brain are developed as a result of our experiences. Just as any animal learns what works to its benefit and what does not under certain conditions, so much of our repertoire of behavior and our sense of what aspects of it are acceptable is learned (and refined) as we experience both the conduct of others and feedback to our own acts.
I assume that none of this reads as particularly revolutionary. But here is where the rubber meets the road. When we are faced with a situation our brain processes the sensory information it receives -- perhaps a sexy glance from an attractive member of the opposite sex -- we will react to this information on myriad levels. The most basic part of our brain may react with lust. The part of us that has learned lust is a sin may feel guilt. We may also feel disloyal to our own mate. If one's self concept is not very sexy, he or she may feel self conscious and bad. If his or her self-concept is gay, then a whole different reaction may result. Sooner or later we may actually start to imagine one or more courses of action. Do I want to flirt? Do more? Calm things down? Avoid? Experiment? Plan a seduction, or maybe a rape?
Ultimately, we will make a decision on how to act in response. This decision may or may not be conscious, and it might not take into account consciously any of the above. Neither whether all or any of the process is conscious, nor the weight we place on each of these factors (and likely others) is a matter of choice. Our values and beliefs, our self-concept and sense of morality, our orientation to the opposite sex and our level of satisfaction with our current mate all already exist. These and other preexisting components of ourselves, all of which have been formed by factors outside of our control, will determine the relative strength of our various reactions and the outcome.
In sum, when we act voluntarily, it is the result of our conscious thoughts, beliefs, etc., as well as unconscious ones which play a role we do not even experience contemporaneously (perhaps the role may be inferred in hind-sight). In this way, our behavior is always determined by prior events and the resultant beliefs we hold, and our genes. The reasons we act a certain way are beyond our control. As Shopenhauer put it, "a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." A deterministic understanding of humans does not equate with a view that our lives are predetermined, or fated, by some outside being. It means only that, despite our feeling that we have a choice and can act as we please, each of our thoughts, feelings and decisions is the inexorable result of determinants.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Do You Believe in Magic?
Is it credible that some part of us (our free will) permits us to act free of our determinants in at least some instances? If so, how and why doesn't everything in the universe -- atoms, cells, dogs, cars -- possess this unnatural quality? For free will is unnatural, or perhaps more accurately supernatural or magical as its existence would violate the law of causation.
Another interesting question is when does free will develop? We all accept that babies don't have it. Does a one year old beginning to talk have it? A two year old who can say "no"? And if we don't have it as a baby, then where does it come from? Does it just appear in different people at different times, and perhaps never appear in others such as the severely retarded? What if it misses and lands on a comatose person, but not on a Ph.D. candidate?
If we are left with free will as magic, then we are on a slippery slope. How do we ever know the truth about something magical? It could be that when I feel as if I am doing something I want to do out of my free will, in reality maybe it is my karma, my fate, the planetary alignment or my parent's sin that requires me to decide to act in a certain way. Or maybe that which we call one's free will is in reality someone else's will -- how many people explain behavior as reflecting "God's will?" Maybe he, or maybe the neighborhood witch is the puppeteer pulling our strings? Of course, the bottom line is that any magical explanation of human behavior and feelings is equally defensible or believable, depending on your bias. Free will is no more intrinsically credible than what we had for breakfast as a basis for explaining human actions. If any of these theories are true, how can science work with respect to humans (for example, medicine) or anywhere else if there is magic afoot? The only rational and non-magical explanation of human behavior is determinism. In other words, there is no extra-physical part of us that governs our physical (including the feelings and thoughts in our brains) activities.
But What About …
Why do some people fear or dislike determinism? Some argue that free will gives one moral accountability. Similarly, it necessitates guilt, seen by some free will proponents as a healthy, controlling emotion. The lack of free will also makes pride a myth, for how can we have pride when our behavior is forced? This may trouble some individuals. However, these arguments miss the point. They address only the desirability of a belief in free will, not whether it exists.
Interestingly, the me-ist who likes guilt because it limits negative behavior is conceding that things we are taught do have an impact on our behavior -- and that guilt is a determinant. Where we differ is that the me-ist thinks one can simply ignore guilt and all else, and choose to behave a particular way in any given situation. In contrast, a determinist believes we will decide to do something that we know will cause us to feel guilt because we still want to do it more than we don't want to do it--and that the reasons for wanting to do it, and the strength of that desire are both beyond our control. If, again for reasons beyond our control, we cannot bear the guilt we anticipate, then we might be forced to act differently.
The physicist may point out that, as far as we understand such things, the laws of causation do not seem applicable to quantum mechanics and that random theory instead appears to be at work there. However, it is well accepted that nature has different rules for sub-atomic objects than it does for larger objects. We humans are much larger than sub-atomic structures and, like other things in the larger physical world, are subject to different principles. In any case, if we are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics then this is an argument that our behavior is random, not that it is self-determined (alternatively, it could mean that quantum objects that appear to be acting randomly are in fact intelligent like us and governed by their own free will). Quantum mechanics does not advance the argument in favor of free will.
Conclusion
So the answer to the question of where is free will appears to be that it is in the imagination of almost all of us, born out of what we have been taught and reinforced by our experience of the world. We feel many things are true, but this does not make them so. We need to look outside our feelings for evidence that they are based on reality. In the case of free will, there is no such evidence to place on the scale. On the other hand and with apologies to those who believe this is all a dream, the fact that we are physical creatures in a physical world is pretty well established. This fact subjects us to well established natural laws, including those of cause and effect. This evidence tips the scales in favor of the conclusion that all human behavior is determined and that there is in fact no such thing as free will. http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, I think this is more a philosophical exercise than it is a scientific one.
Does it matter?
When we feel tired, is that our free-will? When we faint, sleep, is that our free-will?
A person with tourrettes, do they exercise the freedom of the will to act as they do?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When we feel tired, is that our free-will? When we faint, sleep, is that our free-will?
A person with tourrettes, do they exercise the freedom of the will to act as they do?
I think it is important to distinguish the two. Meaning, Philosophy and Science. Of course, there is the rare breed like Einstein that comes along and affects the mix.
I think it is important to distinguish the two. Meaning, Philosophy and Science. Of course, there is the rare breed like Einstein that comes along and affects the mix.
This Susan Blackmore aint no Einstein.
True, Susan Blackmore is a psychologist, physiologist and parapsychologist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh well. I don't like English womens boobies, anyway, so, oh well.
Let them know and maybe they can will themselves nicer breasts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sometimes I will myself, with a few pints, a nicer dick. I suppose it's possible.
This may be an embarassing thing to admit, but as I said "I'm honest". I got into kegel exercises at one point and I was convinced that my member was getting larger, but alas I was fooled.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This may be an embarassing thing to admit, but as I said "I'm honest". I got into kegel exercises at one point and I was convinced that my member was getting larger, but alas I was fooled.
That's probably much better than the Magnet Program I tried.
That's probably much better than the Magnet Program I tried.
It's a physically stressful endeavor. :cool:
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The weights and tape and all of that was sort of uncomfortable.
It's odd, because I was praised by girls for having a pleasurable member, but something within me inclined me to want more. I can't explain it, but I'm glad I don't waste all that time and just get to jackin' now.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's odd, because I was praised by girls for having a pleasurable member, but something within me inclined me to want more. I can't explain it, but I'm glad I don't waste all that time and just get to jackin' now.
A little too much info, but, anyway, what do you think of the signature?
A little too much info, but, anyway, what do you think of the signature?
It works for me
I'm just curious, was I wrong?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Instinct, well that's another can of worms.
It's actually debatable wether or not an infant has "consciousness" because without Language, it's really hard to speak covertly to one's self.
Can you please define consciousness for me? Because the term is really subjective.
No, i won't define consciouness, not tonight, instinct worked.
Peace, bro. I'm off to enjoy FinsburyParkCarrots and his performance of a night ago.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Instinct worked?
Perhaps you don't fully understand instinct. Or perhaps you are thinking of it as it were 50 years ago. Children do not have "Instinct", they have sensorimotor functions that they learn about and learn how to use. Such as screaming draws attention from the care-giver.
Seriously. That is learned. Instinct is an evolutionary deal. Animals adapt to life faster than Humans because they have these definite instincts. It takes a Human being almost 20 years to become "Instinctual". The feeling of hunger is not really an instinct as much as it is a physiological requirement.
"Some sociobiologists and ethologists have attempted to comprehend human and animal social behavior in terms of instincts. Psychoanalysts have stated that instinct refers to human motivational forces (such as sex and aggression), sometimes represented as life instinct and death instinct. This use of the term motivational forces has mainly been replaced by the term instinctual drives.
Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning.
Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: altruism, disgust, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight" and "subjugate or be subjugated".
Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behaviour present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This notion is present in many introductory textbooks (Sociology: An Introduction, Ian Robertson, Worth Publishers, 1989), but is still hotly debated."
So, in Humans "Instincts" are simple sensorimotor functions. Or motivational drives. Still debatable.
I know we're friends. This being UNCONCIOUS shit don't cut it.
You need music, and I recommend it right now, as loud as you can get it!!!!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Who said Unconscious? I simply redefined consciousness as you know it.
I'm busy watching a panel of scientists of different disciplines discuss consciousness.
I'll refrain from making comments, and leave this thread alone now.
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
Toward a Science of Consciousness 2006 hold plenary sessions in the Leo Rich Theatre of the Tucson Convention Center (TCC). Concurrent sessions, poster sessions and Pre-Conference Workshops will be held in Meeting Rooms of the TCC and in several ballrooms of the Hotel Arizona. They are located on the same plaza in downtown Tucson.
Tucson Convention Center
260 S. Church Avenue
Tucson, Arizona
See map below. The TCC is about 15 to 20 minutes by car/taxi from Tucson International Airport. Note the Radisson Hotel
(as in Radisson Parking on map) is now the Hotel Arizona, the official Conference Hotel.
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/location.htm
My bad, the university isn't running this anymore.
Dr Susan Blackmore is a psychologist and writer whose research
on consciousness, memes, and anomalous experiences has been
published in over sixty academic papers, as well as book chapters,
reviews and popular articles. She has a regular piece in the Guardian,
and often appears on radio and television. Her book The Meme
Machine (1999) has been translated into 12 other languages and
more recent books include a textbook Consciousness:
An Introduction (2003) and Conversations on Consciousness (2005).
She has been practicing Zen for twenty years.
WHERE'S THE FREE WILL?
An Exploration of This Elusive Concept
© 2002 Gordon M. Orloff
Most of us believe implicitly in free will. In some ways it appears straightforward: I want to write this sentence, I will my fingers to type on the keypad. Voila. However, most people have not sought to define precisely what free will is, or to understand the complexities inherent in these two short words. This essay will seek to understand the meaning of free will and to explore whether or not it exists.
Some Working Definitions
I want to start by distinguishing "free will" from other attributes. Although free will is often used in connection with one taking an action, the capacity to act does not itself establish that one has free will. Acts can be caused by external forces (I push you so you fall) or can be unconscious (talking in your sleep, or even snoring). Consciousness and the ability to remember and even to learn are also often associated with the idea of free will. However, neither of these attributes equates with free will, for many animals that we do not view as having free will can be conscious and can learn. Here is a tougher distinction to make -- "voluntary activity." I want to sign this document, or have steak for dinner, and I do so. What voluntary activity means is simply that I am doing what I want to do, without physical coercion. To put a finer point on it, I am doing something that I want to do more than I do not want to do it. So I might choose the steak because I want to eat it more that evening than I want the salad on the menu. The important thing to note when it comes to choosing a course of action is that the fact an animal makes a choice does not explain why he made it. The question this essay addresses is whether our choices are caused completely by internal and external forces or whether we are free to choose a course of action regardless of those forces.
A final few definitions are important before moving on. A "determinant" is something that has a role in causing, or determining an outcome. For example, heat is a significant determinant in forcing something to boil. Newton's third law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is, in essence, a statement of determinism.
One who views all things, including human actions, as resulting solely and exclusively from factors or determinants is known as a "determinist." Put another way, a determinist believes that, although one makes voluntary, conscious decisions, those decisions are required by his unique, myriad determinants. As sophisticated and complex animals, humans have determinants ranging from genes to upbringing, culture, current situation, unconscious activity, past experiences and, as observed by Peter Gill, conscious thought. On the other hand, one who believes in the existence of free will holds that a person's choices are self-determined. In other words, one can make a choice to act a certain way regardless of, or despite his or her determinants. Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) defines "free will" as "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." (emphasis added). I call one who believes in free will a "me-ist," for this view is about the triumph of "me" over all causes. Others term this view "libertarian," for it promotes that idea one is at liberty to act as he will.
On the most basic level, what goes into making you act? The search begins with the premise that all of your faculties, senses and perceptive powers reside in your brain and nervous system. This seems a safe premise, for we are no longer capable of making choices or taking actions that could be considered by anyone an expression of our will when our brains no longer function. We are inert when dead.
Each of us is born with a brain that has its unique and innate proclivities, capacities, strengths and weaknesses. The brain has an unconscious portion that regulates at the least such things as digestion, heartbeat and respiration. It also regulates hormone production. The chemicals and electricity in the primitive part of our brains react to sensory experiences, both on a hard-wired level (suck on nipple) and as we learn from experience (biting leads to an unpleasant response). It is likely that childhood traumas have a lasting effect on the unconscious, and even on brain chemistry. Factors such as brain chemistry, hormones and unconscious memories that may be stirred up by present day situations all have an effect on our feelings, thoughts and behaviors -- effects that in many (perhaps most) cases may be unknown to the person experiencing them. These factors are not within our control and certainly are not the result of our own deliberate making.
Unconscious factors affect our decision making process in both large and small ways. How many times do we think we could have made a better decision but for the strong emotions or stress we were feeling in the moment? On a simpler level, the phone number we forget today but remember tomorrow is in our brain, but unconscious for the time being. This fact may play a role in forcing us to take the time to pick up a phone book, or to simply skip a call we otherwise would have made.
Much of the "higher" parts of our brain are developed as a result of our experiences. Just as any animal learns what works to its benefit and what does not under certain conditions, so much of our repertoire of behavior and our sense of what aspects of it are acceptable is learned (and refined) as we experience both the conduct of others and feedback to our own acts.
I assume that none of this reads as particularly revolutionary. But here is where the rubber meets the road. When we are faced with a situation our brain processes the sensory information it receives -- perhaps a sexy glance from an attractive member of the opposite sex -- we will react to this information on myriad levels. The most basic part of our brain may react with lust. The part of us that has learned lust is a sin may feel guilt. We may also feel disloyal to our own mate. If one's self concept is not very sexy, he or she may feel self conscious and bad. If his or her self-concept is gay, then a whole different reaction may result. Sooner or later we may actually start to imagine one or more courses of action. Do I want to flirt? Do more? Calm things down? Avoid? Experiment? Plan a seduction, or maybe a rape?
Ultimately, we will make a decision on how to act in response. This decision may or may not be conscious, and it might not take into account consciously any of the above. Neither whether all or any of the process is conscious, nor the weight we place on each of these factors (and likely others) is a matter of choice. Our values and beliefs, our self-concept and sense of morality, our orientation to the opposite sex and our level of satisfaction with our current mate all already exist. These and other preexisting components of ourselves, all of which have been formed by factors outside of our control, will determine the relative strength of our various reactions and the outcome.
In sum, when we act voluntarily, it is the result of our conscious thoughts, beliefs, etc., as well as unconscious ones which play a role we do not even experience contemporaneously (perhaps the role may be inferred in hind-sight). In this way, our behavior is always determined by prior events and the resultant beliefs we hold, and our genes. The reasons we act a certain way are beyond our control. As Shopenhauer put it, "a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." A deterministic understanding of humans does not equate with a view that our lives are predetermined, or fated, by some outside being. It means only that, despite our feeling that we have a choice and can act as we please, each of our thoughts, feelings and decisions is the inexorable result of determinants.
Is it credible that some part of us (our free will) permits us to act free of our determinants in at least some instances? If so, how and why doesn't everything in the universe -- atoms, cells, dogs, cars -- possess this unnatural quality? For free will is unnatural, or perhaps more accurately supernatural or magical as its existence would violate the law of causation.
Another interesting question is when does free will develop? We all accept that babies don't have it. Does a one year old beginning to talk have it? A two year old who can say "no"? And if we don't have it as a baby, then where does it come from? Does it just appear in different people at different times, and perhaps never appear in others such as the severely retarded? What if it misses and lands on a comatose person, but not on a Ph.D. candidate?
If we are left with free will as magic, then we are on a slippery slope. How do we ever know the truth about something magical? It could be that when I feel as if I am doing something I want to do out of my free will, in reality maybe it is my karma, my fate, the planetary alignment or my parent's sin that requires me to decide to act in a certain way. Or maybe that which we call one's free will is in reality someone else's will -- how many people explain behavior as reflecting "God's will?" Maybe he, or maybe the neighborhood witch is the puppeteer pulling our strings? Of course, the bottom line is that any magical explanation of human behavior and feelings is equally defensible or believable, depending on your bias. Free will is no more intrinsically credible than what we had for breakfast as a basis for explaining human actions. If any of these theories are true, how can science work with respect to humans (for example, medicine) or anywhere else if there is magic afoot? The only rational and non-magical explanation of human behavior is determinism. In other words, there is no extra-physical part of us that governs our physical (including the feelings and thoughts in our brains) activities.
But What About …
Why do some people fear or dislike determinism? Some argue that free will gives one moral accountability. Similarly, it necessitates guilt, seen by some free will proponents as a healthy, controlling emotion. The lack of free will also makes pride a myth, for how can we have pride when our behavior is forced? This may trouble some individuals. However, these arguments miss the point. They address only the desirability of a belief in free will, not whether it exists.
Interestingly, the me-ist who likes guilt because it limits negative behavior is conceding that things we are taught do have an impact on our behavior -- and that guilt is a determinant. Where we differ is that the me-ist thinks one can simply ignore guilt and all else, and choose to behave a particular way in any given situation. In contrast, a determinist believes we will decide to do something that we know will cause us to feel guilt because we still want to do it more than we don't want to do it--and that the reasons for wanting to do it, and the strength of that desire are both beyond our control. If, again for reasons beyond our control, we cannot bear the guilt we anticipate, then we might be forced to act differently.
The physicist may point out that, as far as we understand such things, the laws of causation do not seem applicable to quantum mechanics and that random theory instead appears to be at work there. However, it is well accepted that nature has different rules for sub-atomic objects than it does for larger objects. We humans are much larger than sub-atomic structures and, like other things in the larger physical world, are subject to different principles. In any case, if we are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics then this is an argument that our behavior is random, not that it is self-determined (alternatively, it could mean that quantum objects that appear to be acting randomly are in fact intelligent like us and governed by their own free will). Quantum mechanics does not advance the argument in favor of free will.
Conclusion
So the answer to the question of where is free will appears to be that it is in the imagination of almost all of us, born out of what we have been taught and reinforced by our experience of the world. We feel many things are true, but this does not make them so. We need to look outside our feelings for evidence that they are based on reality. In the case of free will, there is no such evidence to place on the scale. On the other hand and with apologies to those who believe this is all a dream, the fact that we are physical creatures in a physical world is pretty well established. This fact subjects us to well established natural laws, including those of cause and effect. This evidence tips the scales in favor of the conclusion that all human behavior is determined and that there is in fact no such thing as free will.
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Does it matter?
When we feel tired, is that our free-will? When we faint, sleep, is that our free-will?
A person with tourrettes, do they exercise the freedom of the will to act as they do?
I think it is important to distinguish the two. Meaning, Philosophy and Science. Of course, there is the rare breed like Einstein that comes along and affects the mix.
This Susan Blackmore aint no Einstein.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
True, Susan Blackmore is a psychologist, physiologist and parapsychologist.
I might like her if she were a parachutist.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't know, I think she's married though. I'm pretty sure she lives in England or somewhere.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/index.htm
Dammit.
Oh well. I don't like English womens boobies, anyway, so, oh well.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Let them know and maybe they can will themselves nicer breasts.
Sometimes I will myself, with a few pints, a nicer dick. I suppose it's possible.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
This may be an embarassing thing to admit, but as I said "I'm honest". I got into kegel exercises at one point and I was convinced that my member was getting larger, but alas I was fooled.
That's probably much better than the Magnet Program I tried.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's a physically stressful endeavor. :cool:
The weights and tape and all of that was sort of uncomfortable.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's odd, because I was praised by girls for having a pleasurable member, but something within me inclined me to want more. I can't explain it, but I'm glad I don't waste all that time and just get to jackin' now.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It works for me
I'm just curious, was I wrong?
Absolutely wrong.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.