Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:36:50 GMT
Mar 14, 2017 20:36:19 GMT @miccee said:
You're actually asking for evidence that people don't choose what to think before thinking it? Well here is evidence that our decisions are made before we are aware of them:www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html
www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html
For me, free will is not an emotional security blanket, it's just the simplest model for understanding how I consciously experience the world. I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that every decision I make is either predetermined or random, but I don't see any scientific experiments to confirm that that is the right model of reality. It's similar to the idea that consciousness is an illusion: there's no science experiment (thus far) to say one way or the other.
It could be compared to the heliocentric vs geocentric model of the solar system. The heliocentric model isn't strictly wrong, it's just a lot more complicated. The comparison is weak though, because scientific understanding of consciousness is still so lacking, compared to our understanding of solar system dynamics.
I can't explain what free will is, but I can't explain what consciousness is either. I just know that I experience it. I sure nobody else can explain it yet either, although I think it quite possible that science will make breakthroughs in the future. By the way, I'm not in the least a dualist, and I am quite sure that everything about the mind is a function of the (material) brain. I believe the evidence supports that view. For me the mystery is how a physical brain gives rise to consciousness and what nature of computer algorithm would/could produce it. In this, dualistic views don't explain anything, and in fact fail to explain why consciousness depends on a functioning brain.
It could be compared to the heliocentric vs geocentric model of the solar system. The heliocentric model isn't strictly wrong, it's just a lot more complicated. The comparison is weak though, because scientific understanding of consciousness is still so lacking, compared to our understanding of solar system dynamics.
I can't explain what free will is, but I can't explain what consciousness is either. I just know that I experience it. I sure nobody else can explain it yet either, although I think it quite possible that science will make breakthroughs in the future. By the way, I'm not in the least a dualist, and I am quite sure that everything about the mind is a function of the (material) brain. I believe the evidence supports that view. For me the mystery is how a physical brain gives rise to consciousness and what nature of computer algorithm would/could produce it. In this, dualistic views don't explain anything, and in fact fail to explain why consciousness depends on a functioning brain.
How can 'free will' be the most simple model of explaining your conscious experience, when you cannot give the faintest account of what you mean by free will or how it might work. You cannot believe in libertarian free will without the dualist paradigm (and even then, it is still logically impossible to come up with a coherent model of how free will could work). If you are a materialist, then you surely agree that all of our thoughts are produced by some kind of impulse within the brain (neurons firing or whatever). Well that being the case, our choices cannot possibly precede the physical impulse in the brain. Therefore you do not choose what thoughts to think before thinking it, and such an idea is not only impossible but unimaginable. Whilst it is true that there is much to be learned about the nature of consciousness; if consciousness is created by the physical brain (hence the reason why Alzheimer's patients with severely atrophied brains don't even know what day it is, much less retain any willpower) then this means that our choices cannot precede the physical impulse that causes the choice.
And although most people are used to thinking of themselves as the author of their own decisions, the deterministic view is extremely intuitive. I know that my personality was shaped by myriad events over which I had no conscious control. My parents, upbringing, events that occurred in my life, events that occur in the external world, etc. So it is hardly a big leap to say that I can largely explain certain choices that I make based on the data derived fro past experiences. Of course we are never able to predict a person's choices with 100% accuracy, as it would be impossible to have sufficient data. But advertising, for example, depends on the knowledge that people's will can be manipulated.