Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 22:12:10 GMT
Epicurus' quote comes up rather commonly, although I would think that most people don't necessarily couple that with the realisation that libertarian free will cannot exist. Free will is even more nonsensical than the Christian God. At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains. The reason being that if you ever got down to the level of how free will could operate, you find yourself bogged down in incoherence. If anyone could explain how libertarian free will could operate in logical terms, then I would be impressed. I don't think that it can be done. I think that the people who could perhaps give the best input, might be neuro-scientists using scientific analysis of the chemical and physical processes of how conscious human thoughts are manufactured in the brain. This ties nicely in with the thread topic, also, I think. It does tie in, and I would be very surprised if anyone could find a reputable neuroscientist who believes in libertarian free will (and wasn't also a theist). There have already been experiments which have shown that a decision is made prior to entering conscious awareness.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2017 22:26:23 GMT
I think that the people who could perhaps give the best input, might be neuro-scientists using scientific analysis of the chemical and physical processes of how conscious human thoughts are manufactured in the brain. This ties nicely in with the thread topic, also, I think. It does tie in, and I would be very surprised if anyone could find a reputable neuroscientist who believes in libertarian free will (and wasn't also a theist). There have already been experiments which have shown that a decision is made prior to entering conscious awareness. My opinion is that the universe and all in it, even, or more especially, human thought, is fact based. (Human thought is a highly developed result of an evolutionary process ending in self awareness and an ability to imagine, philosophise and manufacture the concept of faith and god) In some individuals due to genetics, environments, nurture and any number of factors, they 'believe' in an entity outside themselves which they call 'god' ( or some such similar concept often called afterlife, soul spirits etc etc etc) As this thread reveals, many also are able to overcome this through logic, reason, knowledge and the breaking down of the concept that 'man' is so special that we must know everything It is one of life's ironies. In essence the two arguments, fact or faith based really all boil down to this. Some people are unable to live without the concept of 'a designer' or something in control, and others can, because of what they observe, learn and understand from the world around them and also an inability to fully understand the cycle of life and death.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 2, 2017 22:27:06 GMT
I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever made a decision to disbelieve in God by reasoning about free will. It seems highly unlikely to me, mostly because of the philosophical murkiness surrounding the concept of free will (at least in my opinion). To me the far more effective path is reasoning based on a scientific understanding of the universe, and concluding that the god(s) as depicted by the ancient religions are highly unlikely. Epicurus' quote comes up rather commonly, although I would think that most people don't necessarily couple that with the realisation that libertarian free will cannot exist. Free will is even more nonsensical than the Christian God. At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains. The reason being that if you ever got down to the level of how free will could operate, you find yourself bogged down in incoherence. If anyone could explain how libertarian free will could operate in logical terms, then I would be impressed. I don't think that it can be done. It must be possible to imagine a universe with libertarian free will, because plenty of people throughout history have done it. It may well lead to contradictions, but I don't think it's relevant to how anyone actually conducts their "journey to fact-based". I think we need to get a better scientific understanding of consciousness first. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/5275/qualia-hard-problem-consciousness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 22:50:38 GMT
Epicurus' quote comes up rather commonly, although I would think that most people don't necessarily couple that with the realisation that libertarian free will cannot exist. Free will is even more nonsensical than the Christian God. At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains. The reason being that if you ever got down to the level of how free will could operate, you find yourself bogged down in incoherence. If anyone could explain how libertarian free will could operate in logical terms, then I would be impressed. I don't think that it can be done. It must be possible to imagine a universe with libertarian free will, because plenty of people throughout history have done it. It may well lead to contradictions, but I don't think it's relevant to how anyone actually conducts their "journey to fact-based". I think we need to get a better scientific understanding of consciousness first. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/5275/qualia-hard-problem-consciousnessThey've imagined a universe and then presumed free will to exist within that universe. Please give me an example of anyone who has demonstrated how libertarian free will works, if you are so confident that it has been done. Certainly, there is more to learn about consciousness. But we don't consciously control or direct the mechanisms whereby thoughts arise in their brain, because in order to do so we would need to have made the choice before we direct our brain to effect the choice.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2017 22:50:50 GMT
Epicurus' quote comes up rather commonly, although I would think that most people don't necessarily couple that with the realisation that libertarian free will cannot exist. Free will is even more nonsensical than the Christian God. At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains. The reason being that if you ever got down to the level of how free will could operate, you find yourself bogged down in incoherence. If anyone could explain how libertarian free will could operate in logical terms, then I would be impressed. I don't think that it can be done. It must be possible to imagine a universe with libertarian free will, because plenty of people throughout history have done it. It may well lead to contradictions, but I don't think it's relevant to how anyone actually conducts their "journey to fact-based". I think we need to get a better scientific understanding of consciousness first. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/5275/qualia-hard-problem-consciousnessThe keyword for all of this is 'imagine'!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 22:52:45 GMT
Sufficiently offensive title.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 2, 2017 23:03:27 GMT
It must be possible to imagine a universe with libertarian free will, because plenty of people throughout history have done it. It may well lead to contradictions, but I don't think it's relevant to how anyone actually conducts their "journey to fact-based". I think we need to get a better scientific understanding of consciousness first. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/5275/qualia-hard-problem-consciousnessThey've imagined a universe and then presumed free will to exist within that universe. Please give me an example of anyone who has demonstrated how libertarian free will works, if you are so confident that it has been done. Certainly, there is more to learn about consciousness. But we don't consciously control or direct the mechanisms whereby thoughts arise in their brain, because in order to do so we would need to have made the choice before we direct our brain to effect the choice. You said "At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains." I didn't say anyone has demonstrated anything, just imagined. I think we both agree that no one has demonstrated a world created by the Christian God, only imagined. I'm saying people have imagined free will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 23:10:12 GMT
They've imagined a universe and then presumed free will to exist within that universe. Please give me an example of anyone who has demonstrated how libertarian free will works, if you are so confident that it has been done. Certainly, there is more to learn about consciousness. But we don't consciously control or direct the mechanisms whereby thoughts arise in their brain, because in order to do so we would need to have made the choice before we direct our brain to effect the choice. You said "At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains." I didn't say anyone has demonstrated anything, just imagined. I think we both agree that no one has demonstrated a world created by the Christian God, only imagined. I'm saying people have imagined free will. But, as far as I'm aware, they have never produced a coherent imagining of how the free will operates. So that would be a universe in which the cracks are basically papered over, and not an imagining of free will. Kindly cite an example of any literature which has imagined how someone can make choices without being caused to make choices and wherein the principles of libertarian free will are demonstrated to be in action. For example, if you were to cite an example of a fantasy scenario in which there is a duality between mind and body, then it would be necessary to show how the author explains whence the 'soul' derives its decision.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 23:13:10 GMT
tpfkar Which makes no sense definitionally. If we act contrary to what was specified as our will, than what was supposed was just wrong, because in acting against it, we were in fact carrying out our will. It is positive fatuity to ascribe acting against one's will as a stipulation of free will. previously on free willy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 23:27:30 GMT
tpfkar Which makes no sense definitionally. If we act contrary to what was specified as our will, than what was supposed was just wrong, because in acting against it, we were in fact carrying out our will. It is positive fatuity to ascribe acting against one's will as a stipulation of free will. previously on free willyYou're once again assuming that libertarian free will must have a coherent definition. Free will means having the capability to act against all factors which might predetermine our decision, which would include all of our own inclinations. So this would mean having a will that is not anchored to any external factors. Whether our behaviour is determined or is subject to randomness, neither of those scenarios permit freedom of will. It is not only impossible for free will to operate in reality, but it is also impossible to venture a meaningful definition of free will...hence the problem of getting bogged down in a morass of contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 23:31:03 GMT
tpfkar No, I'm pointing out that like much of the prejudicial nonsense that you stand up as stipulations, "contrary to one's nature" is vapid meaninglessness. previously on free willy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 23:38:03 GMT
tpfkar No, I'm pointing out that like much of the prejudicial nonsense that you stand up as stipulations, "contrary to one's nature" is vapid meaninglessness. previously on free willyDid we choose our own nature, even in part? If not, and if we only act (and will) in accordance with our own nature, then in what meaningful way can our will be said to be free?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 23:38:48 GMT
tpfkar There have been some who have interpreted some results in that manner, but by no means universally so. How decisions are made at all is not even known, nor the delays between the process and recognition of the process and reporting of the process. It's possible that much of the decision making is pre-made by the very fact of being in the test. previously on free willy
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2017 23:41:47 GMT
Sufficiently offensive title.Not really. If it doesn't apply to you then there is no need to answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 23:56:10 GMT
cupcakesWhat is known about decision making is that physical processes in the brain are what produce decisions. Libertarian free will would require that we direct these physical processes before those very same processes have produced the decision. That would require a duality between mind and brain, but even that would not solve the matter, because it would still then be necessary to explain how the metaphysical component produced that decision.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 23:56:56 GMT
tpfkar No, and polka-dot unicorns are not part of free will either, except maybe for those with stated axes to grind. And yes, the only meaningful free will is the one where we act according to our desires and who we are, not coerced by external forces. previously on free willy
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 3, 2017 0:04:29 GMT
You said "At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains." I didn't say anyone has demonstrated anything, just imagined. I think we both agree that no one has demonstrated a world created by the Christian God, only imagined. I'm saying people have imagined free will. But, as far as I'm aware, they have never produced a coherent imagining of how the free will operates. So that would be a universe in which the cracks are basically papered over, and not an imagining of free will. Kindly cite an example of any literature which has imagined how someone can make choices without being caused to make choices and wherein the principles of libertarian free will are demonstrated to be in action. For example, if you were to cite an example of a fantasy scenario in which there is a duality between mind and body, then it would be necessary to show how the author explains whence the 'soul' derives its decision. It could well be that no imaginings are "coherent", but it could be argued that most or all faith-based imaginings are incoherent, whether we're talking about free will or the Christian God. Your statement lacked the "coherent" qualifier. I'm not supporting the concept of free will in any fashion, in fact I've already stated that it's a side track to what I think is the most effective path to a reason-based view of the world.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2017 3:56:06 GMT
tpfkar Sure, unsound thinking is caused by something leading up to it. Pre-writ and in no way affected by any self-contradictory intention you you may have. Irrelevancies and prejudicial framings do not in any way modulate the aforementioned shattered thinking. The unbalanced bit is placing any import on your acts while holding that there can be no changing the outcome. Sure, but the fact that you can hold these impossible to mutually rationalize beliefs means that causal factors have also led you to not be able to recognize that you hold conspicuously unsound beliefs. previously on free willy
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 3, 2017 4:13:34 GMT
tpfkar Your conclusions do not follow your stated and unstated premises, as flawed as those presumptions are in the first place. And those making the tendentious claims would be the ones that would have to overturn what we directly experience with more than the woefully convenient if arbitrary assertions and lazy hand-waves. previously on free willy
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 3, 2017 11:01:50 GMT
You're getting off track again. I asked you this: "Where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about 'choosing your will'?" To answer that, you tell me where, exactly, it says that in the article you quoted. Or, if you need to make a case for something that article says implying that, you tell me just what you're taking to imply it, and then present a valid logical argument for the implication. How I define "will" has nothing to do with whether the article says what you're claiming it says in your characterization of it. Actions are the manifestation of the will. The article states that libertarian free will means the ability to act contrary to our nature and any causal factors. As actions are the manifestation of one's will (one does not do something intentional unless one wills it), then this scenario would entail the individual choosing their will. That doesn't follow. What follows is, "As actions are the manifestation of one's will, then this scenario would entail the individual being ability to act contrary to their nature and any causal factors."
|
|