Free-Will

1…1213141517

Comments

  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Anyone read John Gray's book - 'Straw dogs - On humans and other animals'? The section on free will. It's damn interesting. I'll try to find a link.

    That's funny man, I looked it up on book reviews. Some of the shit people say is crazy.

    "So much for morality. Free will also has to go: "We can be free agents only if we are authors of our acts; but we are ourselves products of chance and necessity. We cannot choose to be what we are born. In that case, we cannot be responsible for what we do" (pp. 65–66).

    What is going on here? Supporters of free will claim that our choices are free, not that our characteristics arise from free choice. No doubt we are born with certain natural traits, and are much influenced by chance events. But how do these facts show that we do not act freely? How do the facts, e.g., that I have a brain, arms, and legs, none of which I have created, imply that I am not responsible for what I do?"
    http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=218&sortorder=issue

    I don't think anyone is trying to take physical responsibility or freedom away. Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.

    I'm inspired by the words of Clarence Darrow an American lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union (April 18, 1857 - March 13, 1938)

    Burrhus Frederic "B. F." Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American psychologist and author.

    Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe.

    Susan Jane Blackmore (born July 29, 1951) is a British freelance writer, lecturer, and broadcaster, perhaps best known for her book The Meme Machine. Also a psychologist, physiologist and parapsychologist.

    Paul J. Zak (born 9 February 1962 in Santa Barbara, California) is one of the founders of the field of neuroeconomics.

    and many, many others.

    It's clear to me that these professionals have a certain insight into the mind that the rest of us may not. They too have a mind as we do, however, their professions bring their focus to the mind.
    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
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Ahnimus wrote:
    It's clear to me that these professionals have a certain insight into the mind that the rest of us may not. They too have a mind as we do, however, their professions bring their focus to the mind.

    I'd say their professions bring their focus to the brain, and from there, imply mind. Minor distinction, but distinction nonetheless. But I'm sure they kick my ass on brain chemistry.

    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I don't think anyone is trying to take physical responsibility or freedom away. Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.

    You might not be trying to "take physical responsibility or freedom away", but that's what a refutation of free-will does. They very sentence "we should look to people's...." becomes laughable with what you're proposing here, because that implies that we have a choice in the matter.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    whoever put free-will in the bible was a genius. that explains why all the shit that happens isn't God's fault. It's ours. He designed us to fuck ourselves over so he could come save us. im sick of these little games.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Free-Will by definition is the ability to choose contrary to the physical or divine will. That's whats being disputed. All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness. Dig deep. Instead of just assuming they are sinners by some inalienable trait.
    If you are proposing being scientific, doesn't that mean taking all the variables into consideration? Even ones that are more challenging to gauge than others? You say "All it means is that we should look to people's determinants for causality, instead of their consciousness." If we are being realistic, and facing facts, why would we look at one OR the other. If we look at one and deny the other, that's ignoring something. Because we ignore it, does not make it go away. If I have a theory and solve a math problem in my head, that happens in consciousness, AND it happens as brain chemicals. If I have an experience of an alien visitation right now, that occurs in consciousness, and that occurs as brain chemicals.

    And for that matter, scientists don't know if one comes before the other, as OutOfBreath pointed out. They don't know if consciousness precedes brain chemistry or if brain chemistry precedes consciousness. I happen to know from experience that it goes both ways. For example, I used to believe and experience that my mental illness was controlled by my brain chemistry. When I began to experiment with changing my psychology my resulting brain chemistry then also changed! Consistently, and systematically, dependant on my changes in consciousness. Just like how meditation shows dramatic and very real empirical results. I changed my natural genetic predisposition to actually being unmanifest, even when it had been in full swing manifestation for years! I stopped numerous disorders and addictions dead in their tracks, and turned them around. By using consciousness! And free will!
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    sonicreducer wrote:
    whoever put free-will in the bible was a genius. that explains why all the shit that happens isn't God's fault. It's ours. He designed us to fuck ourselves over so he could come save us. im sick of these little games.

    Don't worry, it was a double-edged sword. Man used free-will to destroy God. The joke was on him.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Don't worry, it was a double-edged sword. Man used free-will to destroy God. The joke was on him.

    lightning just struck in a blue sky near my home,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    sonicreducer wrote:
    lightning just struck in a blue sky near my home,...

    :)
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    i'm in this late, and there is no way i have time to read twenty-some pages, but all jargon aside, to argue that man is not equipped with free will is, IMO absolutely absurd. Certainly, as social beings we are dealt a certain hand of specific circumstances thst can limit or open up the choices we are free to make, but within our own set of circumstances we choose our actions.
    i can and do choose whether or not to eat breakfast in the morning and i choose, based upon what is in the cupboard or how much i have in my wallet, what i will eat for said breakfast. i chose to look at this board when i could have chose to do otherwise, and i chose to respond to this particular thread. i chose once upon a time to smoke cigarettes, and it was an excercise of my own free will to stop doing so. It goes on and on. Basically, everything i do today, will be my decision. Yes, our decisions, in many cases our shaped by our sociological experiences and circumstances, but that doesn't negate the fact that we actually make those decisions of our own free will. The thread starter chose to start this thread. Denying free will is ridiculous IMO.


    "i will choose a path thats clear... i will choose free will".
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Cornnifer wrote:
    i'm in this late, and there is no way i have time to read twenty-some pages, but all jargon aside, to argue that man is not equipped with free will is, IMO absolutely absurd. Certainly, as social beings we are dealt a certain hand of specific circumstances thst can limit or open up the choices we are free to make, but within our own set of circumstances we choose our actions.

    Ok, that's the illusion, but you kind of have to think three dimensionally to understand.
    i can and do choose whether or not to eat breakfast in the morning and i choose,
    Probably determined by (i) how much time you have to eat breakfast (ii) if you have anything to eat (iii) if you are actually hungry (iiii) if it's your normal habit
    based upon what is in the cupboard or how much i have in my wallet, what i will eat for said breakfast.
    Ok, I see you thought a bit more about that one, also (i) What your normal diet is like/ your physiological desire to eat certain foods
    i chose to look at this board when i could have chose to do otherwise, and i chose to respond to this particular thread.
    How could you avoid such a popular thread? Honestly it's been viewed almost 1,800 times. I doubt half of those people read it all.
    i chose once upon a time to smoke cigarettes, and it was an excercise of my own free will to stop doing so

    Most likely due to peer pressure, from that point on, a lot of it is due to chemical addiction. Most smokers don't want to smoke of their own "free-will" but they do biochemically. It seems in these cases the body wins. But that's making a distinction between body and mind, which are one and the same.

    Every smoker exercises their will to quit smoking, but only about 2% succeed.

    free-will and choice are not the same thing. Free-will means that we can make all of our choices independent of physical determinants. By that definition quiting smoking should be 100% and it shouldn't be a challenge to anyone.

    Free-will doesn't explain how you got the ideas you have or any of the thoughts that pop into your mind. Determinants explain that.
    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
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    :D:D:D

    Hilarious! All the bases are covered!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Free-will means that we can make all of our choices independent of physical determinants.

    Whoah. Who defines free-will as that?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Whoah. Who defines free-will as that?

    http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=free%20will
    Main Entry: free will
    Function: noun
    1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
    2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will
    free will
    –noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
    2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.


    Let it be known that definition one in both is synonymous with choice and does not make the distinction between "will" and "free will". Definition two appropriately makes that distinction.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=free%20will
    Main Entry: free will
    Function: noun
    1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
    2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will
    free will
    –noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
    2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

    Let it be known that definition one in both is synonymous with choice and does not make the distinction between "will" and "free will". Definition two appropriately makes that distinction.

    Where in here do you see "independent of physical determinants"? For example, who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a brain? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a body? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having consciousness?
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Whoah. Who defines free-will as that?


    He does. So it is written. So it is done. :D:D
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Where in here do you see "independent of physical determinants"? For example, who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a brain? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a body? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having consciousness?

    Umm, basically any major religious sect in the world.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Umm, basically any major religious sect in the world.

    Really? Which religions teach you that you can have free-will without the body and without the mind?

    I think if you examine theological philosophies, you'll find they're much closer to determinism. Every religious sect ties man's will to his God, the omnipresent and omnipotent being who holds a monopoly on judgment. Few religious sects would tell you to value your choices over the choices of that which created you.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Really? Which religions teach you that you can have free-will without the body and without the mind?

    I think if you examine theological philosophies, you'll find they're much closer to determinism. Every religious sect ties man's will to his God, the omnipresent and omnipotent being who holds a monopoly on judgment. Few religious sects would tell you to value your choices over the choices of that which created you.

    True that, well, I find the more I talk to individuals about this, the more we start to agree. For example, the Christian dude I work with.

    First response "THAT! Is NOT how he MADE us!"

    Final response "Well, yea, that's obvious."
    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
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Ha, this is a hilarious question in this book:

    "A man shaves, dons a long-haired wig, makeup, and a dress, and begins to cook and sew. What might a 3-year-old think about these events and why? How is a 7-year-old's understanding likely to differ from that of a preoperational thinker?"

    Hmm, well what does the 3 year old think of the "Events"? or the person?

    I'm willing to bet money that if the 3 year old doesn't whitness the events, they wouldn't know it was the same person. But if they whitness the events they must be able to infer the causality.

    By contrast a 7 year old would be capable of determining, without being whitness to the cause, what the cause was, by causal inference or "operational thought".
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    True that, well, I find the more I talk to individuals about this, the more we start to agree. For example, the Christian dude I work with.

    First response "THAT! Is NOT how he MADE us!"

    Final response "Well, yea, that's obvious."

    The further you explore this the further you'll realize that both free-will'ers and determinists hit a logical brick wall. The problem is that both arguments require their core concepts to be self-evident, which in turn can make either very attractive because they can then in turn explain anything.

    I'm a pretty hard-core free-will'er. But that doesn't mean I'll discount the possibility of a deterministic universe (including the "choices" people make). However, a hard deterministic viewpoint requires a complete shift in how you view the actions of men, particularly within a social context. And too often deterministic philosophies are used for the sole purpose of control. Neither of those facts disprove determinism in any way, however.

Categories