First of all, I don’t think your first premise is relevant. The whole syllogism would be the same without premise 1 because all the terms in the first premise are in the second premise or are not used in the conclusion.Your thought.
- Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation
- Free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage as without consciousness our decision would not be free
- From (2) we can deduce that nothing can formally cause consciousness since otherwise our decision would not be free and it is influenced by the cause
Consciousness is the ability to experience and affect things.Please, explain what you mean by consciousness.
God Bless you
I think we may be omitting some important pieces of this puzzle.Your thought.
- Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation
- Free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage as without consciousness our decision would not be free
- From (2) we can deduce that nothing can formally cause consciousness since otherwise our decision would not be free and it is influenced by the cause
Having said that, I don’t think it is sufficient as a condition for freedom of the will. As a counter-example, animals (i.e., sub-rational animals) experience and affect things, too, but they don’t have free will.Consciousness is the ability to experience and affect things.
Consider the first premises asFirst of all, I don’t think your first premise is relevant. The whole syllogism would be the same without premise 1 because all the terms in the first premise are in the second premise or are not used in the conclusion.
I don’t think so. Could you please explain why?Second of all, you have some significant terms in your conclusion that aren’t in a premise. That is seriously problematic in the field of logic.
I hesitate to use “caused by consciousness” as free will is a secondary quality and it is made of three different qualities namely decision, consciousness and action. Decision is potential and action is actual with a bridge so called consciousness. I slightly change the argument to accommodate your points.Also, I think there is a false assumption built into your syllogism which should be broken out into its own premise. I think you are assuming that consciousness causes freewill decisions. “Depends on consciousness” and “caused by consciousness” are not the same thing. Something could conceivably bestow consciousness upon us, and all other necessary conditions for free will, and then we would be free because we have consciousness and the other conditions, not because something external causes our choices.
Thinking or in another word constructing knowledge is not possible without consciousness as well. Thinking is made of abstraction, consciousness and cognition the first one is the potential, the second one is the bridge between the others and the last one is actual.If something is unconscious it cannot make a free will decision.
- Cause always precedes effect.
- One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
- Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thought.
In other words I cannot consciously determine what I will think about. Therefore free will does not exist.
Of course if we have a soul that transcends cause and effect free will is possible.
Animals do have free will as consciousness is superior to free will as consciousness if primary where as free will is secondary and it is derived from consciousness. In simple word free will is made of decision, consciousness and action. Animals do decide and act and their acts are conscious then they have free will.I think we may be omitting some important pieces of this puzzle.
I think that Bahman’s definition of consciousness can be worked with:
Having said that, I don’t think it is sufficient as a condition for freedom of the will. As a counter-example, animals (i.e., sub-rational animals) experience and affect things, too, but they don’t have free will.
The faculty so called intellect which knows things also is secondary and does depend on consciousness as free will does. Intellect is made of abstraction, consciousness and cognition very similar to free will but with different ingredient.More important than consciousness, so defined, is the ability know things, and not just to know this or that thing, but to know what those things are. In particular, we need to be able to know and understand the intrinsic goodness of the things we experience (and also when that goodness is lacking: i.e., when things are “bad,” or evil). For that we need a faculty, commonly called the intellect.
I am also not completely happy with premise 1, or at least we need to refine it. The fundamental freedom of the will is not so much to choose between things, as to choose or refuse to choose.
It is our intellect that helps us to choose between things: by it we discern what is right from what is wrong, and what is good from what is better. The action of the will presupposes this discernment (which, I suppose, is more or less what is meant by premise 2). Then, it is through our wills that we, based on that discernment, decide to act or not.
I didn’t quite understand, frankly, what is meant by “formally causing consciousness” or how premise 3 follows from 1 and 2. The ability to know things (intellect) is a necessary property of a spiritual being (such as angels and men), and from it flows necessarily the will and (through that faculty) the freedom to decide things. We could say, a creature’s freedom is caused by its spiritual nature.
So you agree with me?Thinking or in another word constructing knowledge is not possible without consciousness as well. Thinking is made of abstraction, consciousness and cognition the first one is the potential, the second one is the bridge between the others and the last one is actual.
Yes and no.So you agree with me?
That I agree.
- Cause always precedes effect.
This is what I call it abstraction. We are aware of abstraction yet abstraction does not cause consciousness. Consciousness however does judge the result of abstraction which can lead to cognition if the result in agreement with what we know otherwise the process of abstraction continues.
- One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.
Consciousness can directly affect abstraction. Please read previous comment.
- Therefore, consciousness cannot cause thought.
No, you can otherwise the process of abstraction is completely deterministic or random. Creativity however cannot arise from determinism and I don’t believe in randomness.In other words I cannot consciously determine what I will think about.
I don’t understand how do you reach to this conclusion.Therefore free will does not exist.
What do you need for free will are options, consciousness and ability to act knowing the consequences.Of course if we have a soul that transcends cause and effect free will is possible.
Animals might appear to decide things, because they have many constantly fluctuating appetites. However, they cannot refuse to act in accord with their appetites, and this is because they do not have knowledge of the intrinsic goodness (or lack thereof) of the things they desire. It is useless to tell a dog that it is overweight and must go on a diet; to control its appetite, you must simply restrict its access to food.Animals do have free will as consciousness is superior to free will as consciousness if primary where as free will is secondary and it is derived from consciousness. In simple word free will is made of decision, consciousness and action. Animals do decide and act and their acts are conscious then they have free will.
The human intellect depends on experience for its exercise, but not for its existence. The main difference between the intellect and the will is that the latter is a kind of tendency or desire. Using the intellect, we know things (or persons); using the will, we desire and love them.The faculty so called intellect which knows things also is secondary and does depend on consciousness as free will does. Intellect is made of abstraction, consciousness and cognition very similar to free will but with different ingredient.
No offence, but it doesn’t think it makes any sense.Your thought.
- Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation
- Free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage as without consciousness our decision would not be free
- From (2) we can deduce that nothing can formally cause consciousness since otherwise our decision would not be free and it is influenced by the cause
No. What I am saying is that being conscious of thoughts is very important in thought process without that there were no difference between us and philosophical zombie.Are you saying that one can be conscious of a thought( lets say the concept “dog”) before you think it?
Yes. But suppose that you hear a bark, how do you relate the sound to a dog?What I am saying is that that is impossible. Since you cannot be aware of the thought “dog” before you think it, your awareness cannot cause the thought “dog.” Why? Because you are only aware of the thought “dog” after you think it and effect cannot precede cause.
It does not follow. Again, if you see a dog you become conscious of the concept a dog. How you could do this without consciousness.It follows that you do not consciously determine your thoughts.
It doesn’t follow. Could you elaborate further.From that it follows that there is no free will.
Do you believe then that you are a philosophical zombie? What is the use of consciousness then?I cannot imagine a free will where you cannot consciously control your thoughts.
For free will to be real you only need to be conscious of thoughts. You don’t need to cause any thought and what you cause is action.I agree that for free will to exist one must consciously cause one’s thoughts. The problem is that for something to cause something it must precede it. For example, if I cause the pins to fall in a bowling game I must throw the ball before the pins fall. If I cause a thought to exist( for example the thought “dog”) and consciousness causes that thought “dog”, consciousness of the thought “dog” must precede the awareness of the concept “dog”. And logic says that that is impossible. Something cannot be simultaneous and also precede another event.
No offense is taken.No offence, but it doesn’t think it makes any sense.
The term ‘consciousness’ can mean many different things. If you wish your argument to be evaluated, you need to express your propositions more clearly, providing concrete examples of what you are actually talking about.