How to refute the "bell and the dog" theory that rejects free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
How do we as Catholics and pro-free will people refute the argument that our “conscious” actions are only the result of a stimuli in the brain?

Such as when we ring a dinner bell the dog will always come even if there is no dinner. Just like I our actions only happen if our brain is stimulated by something.

At least I think that is how the theory goes. I’m a novice at this so I might have misunderstood it, but anyway for the people out there who know what I’m talking about…how can we refute this and say we consciously control our own actions
 
By saying that while conditioning does it exist, it is part of a lower brain functioning, one that can be overcome by reason and free will. Dogs cannot overcome these impulses because their brain is not as developed.
 
I would say, just because people are more than animals, doesn’t mean we don’t still have those “animal parts” of our physical brain. Look at why your heart keeps beating, even when you’re sleeping, and “not there” to give it conscious instructions to do so 😉

People ~can~ be “trained” is a similar fashion, look at the carrot and the stick, sort of discipline they have in… all kinds of places, like a prison, or the way some people raise their children -_-

However, a Person can Think for themselves, in ways a dog can only dream of. A little anecdote, just for fun… the other day, it was raining out, and I decided to go for a walk. I like the rain =) I didn’t care where I was going, not at first, I just went to go for a walk, to settle my mind, but as I kept going, the idea popped into my head to stop for a bite to eat… but I wasn’t really that hungry… and then I realized I was walking in the general direction of a tattoo place, where I’ve been thinking of visiting, so I shrugged and told myself, now’s as good a time as any, so there I went.

There was no perception of any particular rewards involved, other than that I enjoy walking in the rain, and no perception of punishment, I enjoy walking in the rain, so it doesn’t bother me to get a little wet. There other stuff just occurred to me along the way, and I made the choices I felt like making, at the time I made them.

Any dog with the sense God gave it, probably would have stayed home, warm and dry… Well, maybe not a dog. I know some that like playing in the rain… but a cat, for sure, unless it was crazy 😉
 
The theory is self-refuting because it implies that neural impulses are explaining themselves!
 
If that were true, then why are people sometimes even able to resist torture for a cause or belief? Wouldn’t they always do what was rewarded? They sometimes do, sometimes don’t. So, this theory doesn’t hold water very well with humans.

If it did, rehabilitation and human psychology would be a lot less complex than it actually is.
 
ClearWater said:
If that were true, then why are people sometimes even able to resist torture for a cause or belief? Wouldn’t they always do what was rewarded? They sometimes do, sometimes don’t. So, this theory doesn’t hold water very well with humans.

If it did, rehabilitation and human psychology would be a lot less complex than it actually is.
Click to expand...
In other words behavourism is false because it is facile!
 
But wouldn’t the “reward” be to make God happy in that situation?
 
ClearWater said:
If it did, rehabilitation and human psychology would be a lot less complex than it actually is.
Click to expand...
Well, I think people make it out to be more complex that it really is, sometimes. Having grown up with a lot of abuse, I used to do everything I was told, like a good little robot, out of fear of being punished… but at times, I had trouble Not doing what I was told, and being a bit out of control with my rebelliousness… I had to learn to moderate that, in the process of learning how to think for myself… Part of my problem, though, is I have a natural tendency to put others, first, so, I never really minded “doing nice things for people, that didn’t really deserve it”, so it worked out fairly well, for me, in any case, imo

I think Psychology would be a lot better off without Psychiatry, because the latter treats everything as an illness that can’t be “cured” so much as “treated” (with carrots and sticks), and so too many people end up heavily medicated, and unable to deal with their own issues properly, they way others are able to, with procedural therapies, like DBT and Gestalt therapy.

See… dogs can’t explain things the way people can, either 😉

~V~
 
Well, I know as a student I can do my work in class which is supposed to be my stimuli or I can sit there and daydream about things that aren’t related to anything around me.

But really all that theory does is show that dogs don’t have free will. One does not simply use dogs to somehow “prove” that humans don’t have it.
 
This thread is a perfect demonstration of our free will.

We have the ability to freely contemplate whether or not we have free will.

Discussions about objective reality and free will and the existence of the autonomous soul remind me of this excellent
short reply by William Lane Craig.

Student : “…some days ago, a professor of mine said that there is no reality. I don’t know why, but I didn’t like this affirmative because
seems to me that, if it’s true, then we can take all science and throw in the garbage, because, in the end, nothing is real.
I could not make a real argument to refuse that and I would like to have to your help. At last, there is no reality?”

WLC : “Who wants to know?”

:clapping:
 
Lion_IRC said:
This thread is a perfect demonstration of our free will.

We have the ability to freely contemplate whether or not we have free will.

Discussions about objective reality and free will and the existence of the autonomous soul remind me of this excellent
short reply by William Lane Craig.

Student : “…some days ago, a professor of mine said that there is no reality. I don’t know why, but I didn’t like this affirmative because
seems to me that, if it’s true, then we can take all science and throw in the garbage, because, in the end, nothing is real.
I could not make a real argument to refuse that and I would like to have to your help. At last, there is no reality?”

WLC : “Who wants to know?”

:clapping:
Click to expand...
The devil’s advocate could say "I do! Nothing exists but me!
 
What I meant by my earlier comment is maybe when we do an act of love such as starving in order for your child to have enough food to eat…the “stimuli/reward” is the child being healthy because you love the child more than your own life.

Same thing with the torture situation. The “stimuli/reward” would be to know God will reward you if you don’t give in but you will be chastised if you betray him in the heat of torture.

I don’t know. I’m getting a headache from thinking about this too much :ouch:
 
The problem seems to be that they think “free will” is defined as “doing things for no reason.”
 
Ben_Sinner said:
What I meant by my earlier comment is maybe when we do an act of love such as starving in order for your child to have enough food to eat…the “stimuli/reward” is the child being healthy because you love the child more than your own life.

Same thing with the torture situation. The “stimuli/reward” would be to know God will reward you if you don’t give in but you will be chastised if you betray him in the heat of torture.

I don’t know. I’m getting a headache from thinking about this too much :ouch:
Click to expand...
You are free to forget it for today. 🙂
 
laircy said:
The problem seems to be that they think “free will” is defined as “doing things for no reason.”
Click to expand...
👍 This would be true if we lacked free will. Reasons would be replaced by causes…
 
I guess one way to look at it is if I accept responsibility for what I have done and not done, than I have to accept that I have free will.

If I refuse to accept responsibility for what I have done and not done than I am, in effect, saying that I have no free will and that I am just a puppet on someone’s string or I am just a slave to my biological impulses.

Of course one has their free will to decide as to whether or not they believe that they have free will or not.
 
Tom_Baum said:
I guess one way to look at it is if I accept responsibility for what I have done and not done, than I have to accept that I have free will.

If I refuse to accept responsibility for what I have done and not done than I am, in effect, saying that I have no free will and that I am just a puppet on someone’s string or I am just a slave to my biological impulses.

Of course one has their free will to decide as to whether or not they believe that they have free will or not.
Click to expand...
Quoted for Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top