|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 20:50:50 GMT
I only consider claims where evidence lies, not out of sheer want and inanity.  What's kookoo-land is somebody believing their every move is pre-fated, yet having angst over what anybody else believes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 8:58:28 GMT
I only consider claims where evidence lies, not out of sheer want and inanity. What's kookoo-land is somebody believing their every move is pre-fated, yet having angst over what anybody else believes. Where's the evidence that humans can choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? And why is it 'free will' when humans make a choice, but not when an insect or computer does. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a causal factor in changing the beliefs of others, even if I am aware that I myself am caused to want to be a causal factor, |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 14, 2017 12:55:19 GMT
tpfkar Don't care about zealotry-driven inane definitions of free will. A computer or timepiece or Disney animatronic's mechanism is easily seen, and so there is no reason to think they are like us in what we directly experience, at least in what the first person experiences and assumes based upon evidence that those like him also experience. And it is pure koo-koo land to think you can choose anything when you firmly believe that every single move you will ever make is pre-writ. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 14, 2017 14:58:59 GMT
I only consider claims where evidence lies, not out of sheer want and inanity. What's kookoo-land is somebody believing their every move is pre-fated, yet having angst over what anybody else believes. Where's the evidence that humans can choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? Where's the evidence to the contrary? Do people make that claim? I don't. I suppose not, but as with solipsism, in the absence of firm evidence for or against it, Occam's razor is the fallback position. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2017 15:09:29 GMT
I only consider claims where evidence lies, not out of sheer want and inanity. What's kookoo-land is somebody believing their every move is pre-fated, yet having angst over what anybody else believes. Where's the evidence that humans can choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? And why is it 'free will' when humans make a choice, but not when an insect or computer does. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a causal factor in changing the beliefs of others, even if I am aware that I myself am caused to want to be a causal factor, The fact that you are overthinking this is an indication of free will. Most people have other things to think about.
That said, animals are more driven by instinct although they do make choices.
Computers are limited to their programming.
There could be a case made that humans are only acting on what they are capable of doing, but there becomes the added category of complexity. If there are a million options to choose from as a fix set of programming or instinct, then maybe that number is what defines free will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:36:19 GMT
Where's the evidence that humans can choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? Where's the evidence to the contrary? 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.htmlwww.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.htmlBesides which, if we could choose our will, then we would need a will with which to choose our will. And a will with which to choose the will with which we choose our will, and so on... Most free will proponents limit it only to humans. See, that's just the thing. Just because it was always assumed that we have free will, and that vaguely defined term is what emotionally comforts you, that doesn't make it the most parsimonious explanation. 'Occams Razor' =/= orthodoxy. At best, free will is a God of the Gaps argument, and an emotional security blanket. There is nothing in human behaviour which cannot be explained by determinism. Firstly, nobody has even been able to explain how free will could work alongside deterministic causal factors, much less set out why it is a more apt explanation for human behaviour than determinism. How would you propose that free will (in the libertarian sense) actually works? Can you provide ANY sources which might explain how free will would work alongside causal factors (such as our genes, our experiences as we grew up, the biases and predilections that we did not consciously choose to have)? And if you cannot explain what free will is and how it works, then how can you possibly claim that to be the simplest explanation for human behaviour? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:40:52 GMT
Where's the evidence that humans can choose which thoughts to think before thinking them? And why is it 'free will' when humans make a choice, but not when an insect or computer does. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a causal factor in changing the beliefs of others, even if I am aware that I myself am caused to want to be a causal factor, The fact that you are overthinking this is an indication of free will. Most people have other things to think about.
That said, animals are more driven by instinct although they do make choices.
Computers are limited to their programming.
There could be a case made that humans are only acting on what they are capable of doing, but there becomes the added category of complexity. If there are a million options to choose from as a fix set of programming or instinct, then maybe that number is what defines free will.
Humans are effectively limited to our programming as well. Our programming includes our genes, what we have been taught, experiences that have influenced us throughout our lives, and myriad other factors that we have not consciously chosen. Free will is basically the ghost in the machine that nobody can describe or explain how it works, or how it interacts with causal factors.  A million options from which to choose means nothing if you are predetermined to hone into one option which suits your preferences, your biases, your circumstances and your train of thought at the time of approaching the choice. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2017 21:02:32 GMT
The fact that you are overthinking this is an indication of free will. Most people have other things to think about.
That said, animals are more driven by instinct although they do make choices.
Computers are limited to their programming.
There could be a case made that humans are only acting on what they are capable of doing, but there becomes the added category of complexity. If there are a million options to choose from as a fix set of programming or instinct, then maybe that number is what defines free will.
Humans are effectively limited to our programming as well. Our programming includes our genes, what we have been taught, experiences that have influenced us throughout our lives, and myriad other factors that we have not consciously chosen. Free will is basically the ghost in the machine that nobody can describe or explain how it works, or how it interacts with causal factors. A million options from which to choose means nothing if you are predetermined to hone into one option which suits your preferences, your biases, your circumstances and your train of thought at the time of approaching the choice. I don't really think genetic make-up counts anymore than physics does.
The primary thing that matters is the number of choices we can make given the limits of the universe. It's not a fair argument to say that because we are not an ever expanding blob that can transform into anything anywhere, that's proof of us not having free will.
No one is predetermined to do anything beyond breathing. Anything else, including required activities like sleep and pooping can even be altered to some extent to fit what is best for us and that's the small stuff.
There are millions of decisions we make that are different than millions of other people and although these may ultimately be the result of a biological stew of various chemicals, it doesn't change the reality that they are indeed choices that are consciously made by the individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 14, 2017 21:13:32 GMT
tpfkar Libet's conclusions depend utterly on many unwarranted assumptions. We don't have a grasp of the mechanisms the brain uses to make choices, much less how pre-decision making and delays from realization to registering/acting/reporting fit in.  I see you've purloined this bit and incorporated it into your repertoire. That's not free will, that's freaky amorphous god-blob. Free will just means the being makes choices based on who they are, with all their characteristics. How they got that way and ultimate culpability is another, related discussion. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 15, 2017 0:19:28 GMT
Those are evidence that our decision making process involves subconscious components of the brain, but it doesn't say anything about free will. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Mar 15, 2017 2:50:14 GMT
I know. It's all bullshit, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2017 3:41:40 GMT
Once again web sites are claimed to support some atheist notion, but do not. When exactly did subjects know what the test was about? What cued the decision to "move a finger" in the first place? It is obviously very artificial "spontaneity." We are such stuff as dreams are made of. Remember that controversy? "of" or "on" dispute
Our imaginations are totally free. Our physical bodies are not, they have limits. It is often the case that our imaginations find the limits of our bodies. Some people are more "spontaneous" than others, but I believe we are all capable of some spontaneity. People can communicate when they are aware of their choices, animals cannot. We have to guess with animals. Who told you that you can "explain human behavior"? You can't. That alone is proof of free will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:36:50 GMT
Those are evidence that our decision making process involves subconscious components of the brain, but it doesn't say anything about free will. If the decisions are made without conscious awareness, then what kind of free will would that be? That's just another way of saying that your decisions are caused and not consciously directed. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:39:59 GMT
Humans are effectively limited to our programming as well. Our programming includes our genes, what we have been taught, experiences that have influenced us throughout our lives, and myriad other factors that we have not consciously chosen. Free will is basically the ghost in the machine that nobody can describe or explain how it works, or how it interacts with causal factors. A million options from which to choose means nothing if you are predetermined to hone into one option which suits your preferences, your biases, your circumstances and your train of thought at the time of approaching the choice. I don't really think genetic make-up counts anymore than physics does.
The primary thing that matters is the number of choices we can make given the limits of the universe. It's not a fair argument to say that because we are not an ever expanding blob that can transform into anything anywhere, that's proof of us not having free will.
No one is predetermined to do anything beyond breathing. Anything else, including required activities like sleep and pooping can even be altered to some extent to fit what is best for us and that's the small stuff.
There are millions of decisions we make that are different than millions of other people and although these may ultimately be the result of a biological stew of various chemicals, it doesn't change the reality that they are indeed choices that are consciously made by the individual.
There are myriad different factors which feed in to a choice that we make. We are complex beings and therefore our choices are influenced by a vast array of complex inputs in order to produce an output (our choice). Given that thoughts are physically produced by the brain, your will to think certain thoughts cannot precede whichever physical impulse produces the thought as it arises in your mind. Although I understand that as a Christian, you probably have dualistic beliefs concerning consciousness. But even then, you would still have to explain how the ethereal 'soul' forms its will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:42:57 GMT
Who told you that you can "explain human behavior"? You can't. That alone is proof of free will. Human behaviour is largely understood, not by myself, but by scientists who specialise in various branches of psychology. We cannot fully explain a person's choices, because to do so we would require to have knowledge of the full history of every particle of matter in the universe, which is impossible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:46:16 GMT
tpfkar I see you've purloined this bit and incorporated it into your repertoire. That's not free will, that's freaky amorphous god-blob. Free will just means the being makes choices based on who they are, with all their characteristics. How they got that way and ultimate culpability is another, related discussion. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?Of course people are going to choose based on what they are and all of their characteristics. But there is no scope in your argument for any part of the will which is 'free'. You can't explain how free will works alongside deterministic factors. Where does the 'free' part of our will kick in, if factors outwith our control are helping to form our decisions (e.g. forming the non-free part of our will)? |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 15, 2017 8:47:24 GMT
Flawed reasoning. Why do people keep using this? Yeah much more rational to believe that an invisible sky wizard created the Earth in 7 days and a talking snake convincing two people to eat an apple is responsbile for all the shit we see today. Wasn't that George Carlin's comedy routine? You do know that it doesn't come close to describing any real world religion? |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 15, 2017 8:53:35 GMT
Yeah much more rational to believe that an invisible sky wizard created the Earth in 7 days and a talking snake convincing two people to eat an apple is responsbile for all the shit we see today. Wasn't that George Carlin's comedy routine? You do know that it doesn't come close to describing any real world religion? Think you could do with a new routine, your stock answers got stale years ago. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2017 12:39:43 GMT
Who told you that you can "explain human behavior"? You can't. That alone is proof of free will. Human behaviour is largely understood, not by myself, but by scientists who specialise in various branches of psychology. We cannot fully explain a person's choices, because to do so we would require to have knowledge of the full history of every particle of matter in the universe, which is impossible (Emphasis by Arlon). If that gives you emotional security far be it from me to disturb that. I'm disappointed you don't want to discuss Shakespeare. He was a fascinating character as well as playwright. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 15, 2017 13:08:27 GMT
As in not independently imposed, as in any normal use of the word "free" in this context, and as people have meant it forever, not some contrived partisan definition, introduced for tendentious purpose. And regardless, clockwork determinism has not been established. Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong? |
|
