R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Who says we are not meatbots? Our actions and thoughts could be controlled through the unconscious! And, indeed they are controlled by the unconscious to at least some degree, and probably a large degree!
- Status
W
wanstronian
Guest
Yes - haven’t you been paying attention?
I think this demonstrates either a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of what I’m saying. I’m not saying for one second that our decisions are entirely random - they are tempered by our experiences, our upbringing, our intellect, and so on (which are themselves deterministic factors, of course). It is entirely reasonable to consider ourselves responsible for our actions.
This is a deeply flawed analogy - a gear-based machine does not learn; it is not subject to influence from the minute variations in its environment (or not enough to make a difference to its output); it does not have awareness of the impact of its output.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I don’t think it’s possible. The only way would be to log a decision, then reset the universe and see whether a different decision is made. Repeat as necessary to reach a plausible conclusion.
The problem is that once a decision has been made, the universe has changed forever - it cannot be reset.
W
wanstronian
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion, but it boils down to, “It certainly feels like I’ve got free will, therefore I must have.”
How would you envisage such a person behaving?
No, and I’m not suggesting they should. There are good reasons why we should be held responsible for our actions, even if they are pre-determined. The threat of punishment for actions that we know through experience are considered “bad,” is a factor in the chemical processes of our brains that “make decisions.” Similarly for the promise of reward.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I think this is the common error that many people make when confronted with the suggestion that free will is an illusion - that without it we would act like automatons, watching with horror from inside our bodies as they went about doing things we didn’t ask them to do.
That’s not what anybody is saying. The universe is an incredibly dynamic place, and there are thousands, if not millions, of factors influencing the processing taking place within our brains - which are physical entities themselves, and therefore subject to the determinism of physics. Our sense of self is another product of brain activity, so it’s bound to feel like we’re making choices. (As in fact we are, it’s just that we don’t have any choice about which choice to make…)
I’ve encountered people who believe that humans have free will, but non-human animals such as dogs do not. This arbitrary distinction between two types of animal, usually spawned from an uneducated or unthinking rejection of evolution, illustrates quite nicely how readily some people can believe in deterministic behaviours in (non-human) animals. When you then wise up and accept the irrefutable fact that humans are animals too, it’s quite a short step to see that there’s no reason to believe we’re any different.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I have been paying very careful attention - to the fact that you continue to use the term “choice” (or “decision”) even while you contend it is an illusion…
Whether they are random or not is beside the point. “Ought implies can” - Kant. If you have no choice you are not responsible because your actions are caused by factors beyond your control. Even “your” intellect is not “yours” because it is the product of the brain associated with a particular body. In “your” scheme of things “you” don’t even exist!
A computer is a learning machine - the cogs being electronic components. It certainly lacks awareness of the impact of its output but then - according to the materialist - so does the biological machine named as the “body”. Awareness is in the same boat as free will: it is no more than a semblance of awareness! “You” can’t pick and choose. In “your” scheme of things everything without exception is no more than a configuration of matter… trapped in purposeless permutations of atomic particles…
“It is entirely reasonable to consider ourselves responsible for our actions” =
a particular configuration of matter which lacks meaning!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
He does not have any freewill to agree with you. How can somebody truly know if something is reasonable when they don’t have the freedom to reason?
In other-words your talking to a brick wall.
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
Free will is very interesting.
… in any one decision offering choice, an acceleration in many ways.towards the choice caused through mental activity experience ect, creates a false sense of determinism.
Choice is an evolving process not easily captured in its true nature due to multi facet contribution.
Once a decision is accepted, it is difficult to avoid…why is that…? Does this fact suggest
an unfolding process within choice…? It looks like choice is dependent on something which
represents…“an irreducible relative disposition, of need”
Where did the irreducible disposition come from ?
The disposition represents individual objective in his or her …self becoming vision.(objectives)
All decisions or choice’s have consequence.
In our conscious ability we…“attempt to foresee consequence” It is precisely here in this moment “MANAGEMENT” in objectives can and does… “QUALIFY” choice.
The qualification of choice gives logical reason to self tuned self designed…life objectives
The issue is solved in our conscious ability to foresee consequence, and either choose X…or …Y
The same consciousness which was employed in composing an entirely unique vision for self
in life.
Reason mutually reliant…reason for reason.
To say we have no choice is to reject our ability to grow into an admirable self liking of oneself.
This practice would then be…irrational. The abstract thought in conscious awareness is very important to understand
.
… in any one decision offering choice, an acceleration in many ways.towards the choice caused through mental activity experience ect, creates a false sense of determinism.
Choice is an evolving process not easily captured in its true nature due to multi facet contribution.
Once a decision is accepted, it is difficult to avoid…why is that…? Does this fact suggest
an unfolding process within choice…? It looks like choice is dependent on something which
represents…“an irreducible relative disposition, of need”
Where did the irreducible disposition come from ?
The disposition represents individual objective in his or her …self becoming vision.(objectives)
All decisions or choice’s have consequence.
In our conscious ability we…“attempt to foresee consequence” It is precisely here in this moment “MANAGEMENT” in objectives can and does… “QUALIFY” choice.
The qualification of choice gives logical reason to self tuned self designed…life objectives
The issue is solved in our conscious ability to foresee consequence, and either choose X…or …Y
The same consciousness which was employed in composing an entirely unique vision for self
in life.
Reason mutually reliant…reason for reason.
To say we have no choice is to reject our ability to grow into an admirable self liking of oneself.
This practice would then be…irrational. The abstract thought in conscious awareness is very important to understand
.
J
jsaldar
Guest
So if we are not any different from other animals, why do we not see monkies flying planes, building skyscrapers, driving cars, building economies. Having beliefs: atheist, pantheist, Christians etc… I think this involves making some sort of decision in ones life, distinguishable from other animals in the animal kingdom.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Now that’s a real pity! I thought I might possibly persuade him to change his mind…
E
exnihilo
Guest
You can use the word feel, but I think perceive would be better. Of course if you are going to say feel then I would also feel that there are color that I see. I would feel that I’m reading a book. I would feel that I have knowledge. The word feel implies an utter skepticism which leaves us in doubt of everything. I perceive choice the same as I perceive color, sound, reading and any other mental activity.
I cant really envision such a person because it makes no sense. It is irrational.
The best I can come up with is they should have no moral outrage or believe in justice because those concepts are metaphysical and a person who denies free will is a materialist. I’m not sure how man could even invent metaphysical concepts, which would be necessarily false, if they are a materialist. Why would a thoroughly material mind make up a falsehood?
You are denying free will and then smuggling in words that require free will. If there is no free will there is no ‘should’. With no free will we aren’t choosing so we cant say you should do anything. All you can do is what you must do. There is no persuading. Even if chemicals which affect what we call decisions can be changed the person causing the change, through punishment or reward, is not making a decision to inflict either. That person is just doing what he must do. That person is not free to chose to punish or reward to influence another person’s behavior.
In the absence of free will all things including the planets, mankind, and man’s decisions have all been predestined since the beginning of time. Nothing I have done, good or bad was a choice. My creation was not even a choice nor was another person’s. No decisions could have been anything other than what they are the same as the physical world could not have been anything other than what it was.
S
Spirithound
Guest
So in other words, your position is no more tenable than mine.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Do you require that I write “the illusion of…” before these words each time? If this is necessary to enable you to understand, then please let me know. I assumed you were bright enough to interpret what I was saying - but then, given your long history of misinterpreting what I say, maybe that was naive of me.
Of course I exist - I am the collection of physical molecules and particles that consitute my body, including my brain. The fact that this is the product of physical processes doesn’t mean that I don’t exist. On the contrary, in fact - it means that I can prove I do exist, because my existence is empirically testable.
While you stick to your outmoded and baseless conviction of mind-body dualism, you will never be able to grasp what I am saying.
Misrepresentation. Straw Man. Touch of Ad Hom.
The individual particles are demonstrable purposeless. The permutations of these particles are demonstrably not. You might need to call upon some supernatural nonsense so you can pretend to understand it. Others are happy to admit that we don’t understand it yet, and are working on it.
Yes - as I suspected, you simply can’t understand these concepts because you are so ensconsed in your dogma. It’s like the theists who think that without belief in God, atheists must have an empty and meaningless existence - simply because *they *(the theists) can’t imagine what would fill the void, all the time completely unaware that atheists don’t even have this unnecessary void. You can’t break free of your own convictions, so you’re unable to comprehend the very straightforward arguments being put forward.“It is entirely reasonable to consider ourselves responsible for our actions” =
a particular configuration of matter which lacks meaning!
Reading your current signature, it’s clear that your entire belief system is based around your own fear of reality. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t give too much credence to your opinion.
W
wanstronian
Guest
This is one of the most pathetic arguments I’ve seen. It’s a heinous misrepresentation of what I said, so you haven’t really given me anything to respond to. It’s like me asking you to justify your assertion that all cows are black and white.
If you want to rephrase your question in an intelligent and relevant manner, please go ahead.
W
wanstronian
Guest
This again shows your failure to grasp the concept. You arguments, weak though they are, are still influencing factors on the processes of the brains of anybody who reads them.Now that’s a real pity! I thought I might possibly persuade him to change his mind…
The fact that you seem to think that the absence of free will precludes the possibility for someone to change their mind, simply provides more evidence that you just don’t understand the subject.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Well, mine is based upon provable facts about the universe, and yours relies on an inexplicable, undetectable, sourceless phenomenon with no supporting evidence.
Apart from that, you’re right.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your inconsistency reveals itself regardless of what you write! Everything you write presupposes that you have chosen to write it without compulsion…
No response.
A person is not adequately defined as “a collection of physical molecules and particles”.
Does the collection of physical molecules and particles test its own existence?
Allegations without justification.
You have not justified your belief that a person is a collection of purposeless permutations of atomic particles…
You haven’t put forward **any **argument, let alone a straightforward one!
W
wanstronian
Guest
“Perceive” is fine by me, in the sense of “regard as.”
Then how are you able to substantiate your claim that “no one who disclaims free will lives as if they believe it?” If you cannot envision how such a person would behave, how do you know that they would not behave, day-to-day, the same as someone who does believe in free will?
If you take the entirely reasonable view that concepts are contained within the processing of the brain, and furthermore that, as all available evidence suggests, the processing of the brain is entirely a physical process, then concepts are the result of physical processes, and are maintained by physical processes. Just because you can’t pick up a concept and put it in your pocket, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a product of physics.
Like Tony, you seem to have missed the point.
The absence of free will has zero impact on the way we live our lives. It doesn’t mean we have no sense of moral outrage; it doesn’t mean we can’t believe in and strive for justice; it doesn’t even mean we shouldn’t attempt to make choices. Just because free will is most likely an illusion, that doesn’t mean that the illusion doesn’t work for us. The realisation that free will is an illusion doesn’t stop us from acting as though it were real - in fact we have no choice, ironically.
People operated for millenia under the illusion that the sun revolved around the earth, with no impact on their day-to-day lives. Why? Because ultimately, it made no difference. In the daily lives of 99% of us, it still doesn’t. We still call it sunset and sunrise - geo-centric terms if ever I heard any. Why? Because the model works. Even though we know that it’s an illusion, it’s still a working model. The illusion of free will is the same. Even though it’s an illusion, it doesn’t affect how we live our lives. I can still perceive that I’ve made a decision, even though ultimately I had no real choice.
Yep. That’s about it. Based on what we know* about the world, that is the most rational conclusion:
- We have evidence that the brain is a physical entity.
- We have evidence that the brain is responsible for consciousness, emotion, thought, understanding, and so on, because we can see that the functioning of the brain can be altered chemically or by damage (physical influences, in other words), and that these alterations can manifest changes to consciousness, emotion, thought, understanding, and so on. In fact, we can broadly predict which effects will be caused by which alteration.
- We have no evidence whatsoever that there is any interaction between the brain and any non-physical phenomenon.
Add to this, recent experiment in neuroscience have shown that a “decision” is made in the brain before the subject is even aware of having made this “decision.”
*By this I mean, the provisional, but empirical, knowledge afforded by science. Which, when it comes to it, is the only objectively valuable knowledge there is.
S
Spirithound
Guest
What facts about the universe? We’re not talking about the Law of Inertia here. Even if we are ruled by our instincts, human choice (or “choice,” if you prefer) is in no way analogous to any series of physical cause-and-effect occurrences.
When I ask you to lay out for me the equation that causes one person’s “choice” and then ask why other people in similar situations “choose” a different action, you’ve got nothing other than your own black box. Therefore, your conclusions are also inexplicable, have undetectable (and therefore sourceless) factors, your own missing evidence.
I prefer to stand with another poster who said that he has the experience of making a choice. I have the experience of phenomena that I have not chosen, even phenomena very intimate to myself: I do not choose to make my heart beat, I do not make the choice to breathe (most of the time). However, I do have the experience of making a choice, and I have the experience of it being very difficult, on occasion. If my choices were predetermined, this should not be an experience of mine.
- Status