Whats your arguement for Free Will?

13»

Comments

  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    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
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    Ledbetterdays wrote:
    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.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    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

Categories