free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
alright so here is the deal I’m on this message board and we are arguing does free will exist

one side argues that Free will does exist becuase we as humans have right and wrong and becuase of right and wrong humans unlike animals do things that are the expected response to its environment

but the other side first and most simply argues that there is this process in the brain which predicts whats going to happen before it actually happens, so they argue that our unconscious mind knows what we are going to do before our conscious, and that can’t be changed and becuase of this free will can’t exist becuase our unconscious is deciding things not our consious.

the first video is what got the debate started

youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

the next video is the anti free will argument in a video

youtube.com/watch?v=8LE4uu49SU8&feature=related

the third and final video is an argument for free will

youtube.com/watch?v=YanhQCML-k4

so what do you think of this debate

what are some of the best arguments for free will you have heard or you know

are there some well known catholic philosophers who argue for free will, and their argument takes care of the neuroscience aspect of this argument which is the best argument against free will.
 
catholictiger said:
alright so here is the deal I’m on this message board and we are arguing does free will exist

one side argues that Free will does exist becuase we as humans have right and wrong and becuase of right and wrong humans unlike animals do things that are the expected response to its environment

but the other side first and most simply argues that there is this process in the brain which predicts whats going to happen before it actually happens, so they argue that our unconscious mind knows what we are going to do before our conscious, and that can’t be changed and becuase of this free will can’t exist becuase our unconscious is deciding things not our consious.

the first video is what got the debate started

youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

the next video is the anti free will argument in a video

youtube.com/watch?v=8LE4uu49SU8&feature=related

the third and final video is an argument for free will

youtube.com/watch?v=YanhQCML-k4

so what do you think of this debate

what are some of the best arguments for free will you have heard or you know

are there some well known catholic philosophers who argue for free will, and their argument takes care of the neuroscience aspect of this argument which is the best argument against free will.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don’t have sound on my computer.

Free will exists because human nature itself unites the material and spiritual worlds. Thus, we are spirit/matter; immaterial/material; rational/corporeal; all of which means that humans are a totally unique unification of body and soul. Intellect and will exist as functions or abilities of our spiritual soul.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
The experiment in the first video is interesting but I’d say doesn’t cut it because it’s about non-reflective thinking. Usually we make this kind of decision subconsciously – we drink from a cup without being aware of all the thoughts about getting the rim exactly to our lips, etc. So of course the conscious mind gets in late on the act, there’s nothing much for it to do.

The “free will” video doesn’t cut it either for the opposite reason – it ignores the fact that conscious thought is usually highly reflective, meaning there’s feedback going on in parallel all over the shop (you can see it on those MRI scanners), and consciousness then plays an important role in shaping and directing.

To show free will, try being ultra scientific instead of mentioning dualism :). If our minds are deterministic then it would be possible to predict the exact train of someone’s thoughts about, say, what to give a loved one for their birthday. But even with the best equipment money can buy, all that parallel feedback continuously modifying our thoughts makes prediction impossible, even in principle. And if those trains of thought are forever unpredictable then there’s no scientific way to prove they are deterministic, ergo whatever theorists say we have free will.
 
catholictiger said:
alright so here is the deal I’m on this message board and we are arguing does free will exist

one side argues that Free will does exist becuase we as humans have right and wrong and becuase of right and wrong humans unlike animals do things that are the expected response to its environment

but the other side first and most simply argues that there is this process in the brain which predicts whats going to happen before it actually happens, so they argue that our unconscious mind knows what we are going to do before our conscious, and that can’t be changed and becuase of this free will can’t exist becuase our unconscious is deciding things not our consious.

the first video is what got the debate started

youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

the next video is the anti free will argument in a video

youtube.com/watch?v=8LE4uu49SU8&feature=related

the third and final video is an argument for free will

youtube.com/watch?v=YanhQCML-k4

so what do you think of this debate

what are some of the best arguments for free will you have heard or you know

are there some well known catholic philosophers who argue for free will, and their argument takes care of the neuroscience aspect of this argument which is the best argument against free will.
Click to expand...
These arguments against free will all make the fatal error of assuming that free will must reside in our consciousness. But free will resides in the soul, and our consciousness is not our soul.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
These arguments against free will all make the fatal error of assuming that free will must reside in our consciousness. But free will resides in the soul, and our consciousness is not our soul.
Click to expand...
how would you explain this to a person who doesn’t believe in the soul I guess you would have to explain the soul first then get onto free will.
 
catholictiger said:
how would you explain this to a person who doesn’t believe in the soul I guess you would have to explain the soul first then get onto free will.
Click to expand...
Well, if you’re already an atheist, then you’re likely a materialist and a determinist and don’t believe in free will because you just think everything in the universe is a long chain of material cause and effects. But the atheist then assumes that for the Christian that consciousness must be free from material causes, kind of a “ghost in the machine” driving the material body through the world. And when this idea seems untenable, the atheist concludes that there really is nothing else other than the material world. He’s “proved” there is no soul by equating soul with consciousness, a false premise. You can’t prove there is a soul, but you can point out to the atheist that his idea of “soul” is badly flawed and his argument against free will thus flawed as well.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Well, if you’re already an atheist, then you’re likely a materialist and a determinist and don’t believe in free will because you just think everything in the universe is a long chain of material cause and effects.
Click to expand...
this is their main argument
But the atheist then assumes that for the Christian that consciousness must be free from material causes, kind of a “ghost in the machine” driving the material body through the world. And when this idea seems untenable, the atheist concludes that there really is nothing else other than the material world. He’s “proved” there is no soul by equating soul with consciousness, a false premise. You can’t prove there is a soul, but you can point out to the atheist that his idea of “soul” is badly flawed and his argument against free will thus flawed as well.
Click to expand...
and when I brought up the consciousness like the pesron described in one of my earlier videos he claimed that the pressure is on us to prove the conscious mind, he doesn’t believe there is this thing that can alter the way our mind works or prevent a predictable brain activity from occurring I think along the lines of that. He and I aren’t neurosciencest so its difficult to respond to.

Also my main argument along with others is that humans are beyond anaimls becuase they realse something as right and wrong and they put this into their decessions. Also when we do something we know is wrong we have a sense of Guilt, animals don’t have this same kinda thing. This feeling of Guilt and knowing of right and wrong we must believe that Free will there for exist becuase if we are just reactionary beings we wouldn’t have a knowledge or Right and Wrong we would just do the thing that is most beneficial to our body and our life.

they come back at me by saying animals show some of the same traits as we do so they must know right and wrong or evolution designed our body in a way that it looks like we know right and wrong but we just have been designed by evolution to work this way or something along the lines of that.
 
There’s no argument to prove free will or determinism, though you may slyly reply that if everything is determined, no one necessarily believes things because they are true or because they have good reasons, but only because they are determined to believe them by previous causes.

If one does not intuitively grant free will to a world view, it can never be proved (or disproved): same with morality and reason.
 
catholictiger said:
and when I brought up the consciousness like the pesron described in one of my earlier videos he claimed that the pressure is on us to prove the conscious mind, he doesn’t believe there is this thing that can alter the way our mind works or prevent a predictable brain activity from occurring I think along the lines of that. He and I aren’t neurosciencest so its difficult to respond to.
Click to expand...
Try my argument in post #3, plus throw in the classy terms emergent complexity and chaos theory. Emergence says the whole is more than the sum of the parts, chaos that the behavior of some things can never be predicted.

Doesn’t really matter if you personally believe these apply to the mind, your opponents will need to prove they don’t apply to complex trains of thoughts, and there’s no way they can. 🙂
they come back at me by saying animals show some of the same traits as we do so they must know right and wrong or evolution designed our body in a way that it looks like we know right and wrong but we just have been designed by evolution to work this way or something along the lines of that.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go with that argument because you can’t prove animals don’t also have feelings of guilt. From your opponent’s point of view it’s highly likely that (possibly primitive) forms of human traits can be found in other species, and you’ll find it really hard to prove otherwise.
 
If the material world is deterministic, but we uniquely have free will, doesn’t our free will break the material world’s determinism, since we can affect the Universe?
 
The best argument I’ve ever heard for free will is that we can’t fully explain consciousness, so it must be a form of dualism and that non-material entity somehow has free will.

Edit: Mind you, that isn’t going to impress your opponents, but, well, I can’t help with that or I’d agree with you, haha.
 
Pieman333272 said:
If the material world is deterministic, but we uniquely have free will, doesn’t our free will break the material world’s determinism, since we can affect the Universe?
Click to expand...
No. The butterfly effect, for example, produces unpredictable behavior in a deterministic system. There are systems like weather or earthquakes where every step is deterministic yet we can never get enough detailed information to predict exactly what will happen. So there’s no either/or, there are things that work deterministically but behave non-deterministically. We may be unique but there’s no need to prove it in order to prove free will, just dazzling the opponents with a little chaos theory is enough. 🙂
 
inocente said:
No. The butterfly effect, for example, produces unpredictable behavior in a deterministic system. There are systems like weather or earthquakes where every step is deterministic yet we can never get enough detailed information to predict exactly what will happen. So there’s no either/or, there are things that work deterministically but behave non-deterministically. We may be unique but there’s no need to prove it in order to prove free will, just dazzling the opponents with a little chaos theory is enough. 🙂
Click to expand...
Unpredictable behaviour in itself is not sufficient for free will to exist. If we act randomly we are obviously not responsible for what we do. We exercise free will only when our choice cannot be explained **entirely **by our genetic makeup and our past experiences. If we make no contribution the choice cannot be ours even though it is associated with us. We have to be the main driving force, i.e. exercising our power of self-determination which cannot be explained scientifically.
 
tonyrey said:
Unpredictable behaviour in itself is not sufficient for free will to exist. If we act randomly we are obviously not responsible for what we do. We exercise free will only when our choice cannot be explained **entirely **by our genetic makeup and our past experiences. If we make no contribution the choice cannot be ours even though it is associated with us. We have to be the main driving force, i.e. exercising our power of self-determination which cannot be explained scientifically.
Click to expand...
Randomness wasn’t mentioned – unpredictable doesn’t mean random.

Otherwise agreed except your last sentence should of course end “cannot be explained scientifically yet”. 🙂
 
inocente said:
Unpredictable behaviour in itself is not sufficient for free will to exist. If we act randomly we are obviously not responsible for what we do. We exercise free will only when our choice cannot be explained entirely by our genetic makeup and our past experiences. If we make no contribution the choice cannot be ours even though it is associated with us. We have to be the main driving force, i.e. exercising our power of self-determination which cannot be explained scientifically.
Click to expand...
Unpredictable doesn’t mean random but random activity is an example of unpredictable!
Otherwise agreed except your last sentence should of course end “cannot be explained scientifically yet”.
Click to expand...
Our power of self-determination will never be explained scientifically because the self is not a scientific concept.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top