I just was thinking about this earlier today. Since our brains work in the way that sensory inputs are just processed into outputs, do you think we actually have "free will," or at least how people think of it?
An example: Someone steps on my toe, and I "choose" to yell at them.
I don't believe that we can actually "choose" what we do, even though it feels like it, our brain has a designated response to each thing that it sees. My brain thinks yelling at them is the best possible decision at the moment, so it sends signals to my muscles to do so.
+1 for the Plato's Cave reference.
As for free will, imo yes we do have it but I sometimes wonder to what degree. With your example, yes we have the "free will" to chose our reactions despite what our initial desired response might be.
I love this topic. And the answer is "no". We do not have free will, it is an illusion (and powerful at that). We are not little causal agents, were not the authors of our brains - we are in essence the sum of all our experience, genetics, upbringing, social strata and some luck throw in.
"If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution." - Sam
Harris
Yes, My instinctual reaction may be automatic but if I can control that reaction then I can override my urge to yell at someone, and instead respond with my own choice of action. This action will be based on past experience, knowledge, morals, mood, ect. But the decision has many choices, and it is my choice to make.
Quote from: IceScythe on September 18, 2013, 12:57:18 AM
Yes, My instinctual reaction may be automatic but if I can control that reaction then I can override my urge to yell at someone, and instead respond with my own choice of action. This action will be based on past experience, knowledge, morals, mood, ect. But the decision has many choices, and it is my choice to make.
Well in the interest of not seeming like I'm picking on you (because lately it would seem that way) but: where do all of your thought and actions happen? I know the answer, it is your brain. It is in control of all those things, and deterministic factors allow you to believe what you're doing is "choosing" not to be angry in this situation - but your brain already decided that action long before you had a moment to think about it.
Your brain is doing so many things all at the same time, none of which you have any explanation for. You don't decided between a glass of water or a glass of milk, you can only view your choice upon reflection. Why did I make an example out of Water/Milk? I don't know, I just did - perhaps I figured it would be effective. Notice how everything I'm saying is from retrospect.
Like most of these touchy subjects, I find myself disagreeing with both "yay" and "nay." Perhaps it's best to stop thinking in such black and white terms?
We are (usually) able to make our decisions. These divisions are heavily influenced by the factors mentioned by others, but it depends on the individual as to how those influences are regarded. I see where you're both coming from, truly, but I believe that the middle ground has it.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 01:17:56 AM
Like most of these touchy subjects, I find myself disagreeing with both "yay" and "nay." Perhaps it's best to stop thinking in such black and white terms?
We are (usually) able to make our decisions. These divisions are heavily influenced by the factors mentioned by others, but it depends on the individual as to how those influences are regarded. I see where you're both coming from, truly, but I believe that the middle ground has it.
I have heard this argument before, and I believe after debating at length with several folks (this is a bit of an expert subject of mine) that ultimately this type of agrument agrees with Determinism over Free Will.
In essence you're saying free will is our reflecting self - the part of your brain that convinces you you're in control, even though it can only be retrospective - is made up of morals, preferences and desires. That is correct, determinists agree with you, however you're calling it free will in error.
Case in point: you cannot will your next thought, you cannot provide a reason for WHY you did something - only that you have already done it (in the past) and can only reflect upon something when it's done. Even if one believes in the ghost in the machine (an immortal soul for example) you still cannot take credit for not having the soul of a psychopath. We're all profoundly lucky to be who we are, and a number of other deterministic factors.
Another example: Your brain is in control of all your vital functions. No one claims to have autonomy over these functions - right now respiration, blood flow, metabolism and our immune systems are all working without our input. However, when it comes to consciousness we all claim to have autonomy. Why is that? Occam's Rasor would suggest we cut out any other nonsense. But let us entertain it.
Which portion of our brains does free will live? We know that if you active certain portions of the brain, and inhibit others - you can take a completely normal and healthy person and make them different. We know that massive head injuries result in various behavioral and functional changes as well. Did they also lose their free will part? How about people with Down syndrome. Have they choosen to be this way? We know that their genetics may be the easiest explanation for their behavior, but if we introduce the concept of free will - then we've got some explaining to do.
Free will makes a lot of assumptions about how our brains work. None of these assumptions are really founded in what we know about brain function in the new, emerging field of neuroscience.
Perhaps. Like I said, I do understand where you're coming from. And there are times that I could say I agree with that 100%. But it's not always like that. I do have some control over my brain and my process of thought. What do you call that ability to control your own thought process (your will) as you desire (freely) if not "free will?"
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 01:38:05 AM
Another example: Your brain is in control of all your vital functions. No one claims to have autonomy over these functions - right now respiration, blood flow, metabolism and our immune systems are all working without our input. However, when it comes to consciousness we all claim to have autonomy. Why is that? Occam's Rasor would suggest we cut out any other nonsense. But let us entertain it.
Which portion of our brains does free will live? We know that if you active certain portions of the brain, and inhibit others - you can take a completely normal and healthy person and make them different. We know that massive head injuries result in various behavioral and functional changes as well. Did they also lose their free will part? How about people with Down syndrome. Have they choosen to be this way? We know that their genetics may be the easiest explanation for their behavior, but if we introduce the concept of free will - then we've got some explaining to do.
Free will makes a lot of assumptions about how our brains work. None of these assumptions are really founded in what we know about brain function in the new, emerging field of neuroscience.
Well, we only know what about, 10% of the brain does? And even then we don't know how it works. Asking where it is to mock a lack of an answer is kind of a null argument. You don't know where determinism is, either.
As for losing free will to brain damage, yes I think that's entirely possible. Just like you said, the brain can be altered, damaged, even born flawed, all denying it the ability to fiction as it needs to. In order for a will to be free, you need the capability to form a will, and the faculties to pursue it.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 01:39:03 AM
Perhaps. Like I said, I do understand where you're coming from. And there are times that I could say I agree with that 100%. But it's not always like that. I do have some control over my brain and my process of thought. What do you call that ability to control your own thought process (your will) as you desire (freely) if not "free will?"
I would suggest you're not actually in control as much as you'd believe. Example: what would you make of your sudden lack of interest in a school subject? How about work? How about your love life?
Would you say you choose not to have the desire to get into Harvard? Or that you don't have the work ethic you need to get into Harvard because your parents did not instill it in you. Perhaps your parents (whom you did not choose mind you) are not capable of teaching you those necessary lessons because they're unable to do it themselves, and their parents before them.
Time is always moving in a straight line, we cannot go back in time. We exist going on a straight line. Things that happened before you (things you are not in charge of) and it shapes our future. You're alive in the 21st century, speak English (or at least write it) and have a web enabled device. For each of those spaces we all currently occupy we're created for us, they also create who we are. If I was not typing this - it would not have typed itself. But it also the words I've written, my brain deciding which alphabetical symbols create words. Neurons, electrons, synapses firing and me only reacting to what I've written an thinking "this is completely in line with my message and who I think I am". Does not explain why I'm doing it though.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 01:45:41 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 01:38:05 AM
Another example: Your brain is in control of all your vital functions. No one claims to have autonomy over these functions - right now respiration, blood flow, metabolism and our immune systems are all working without our input. However, when it comes to consciousness we all claim to have autonomy. Why is that? Occam's Rasor would suggest we cut out any other nonsense. But let us entertain it.
Which portion of our brains does free will live? We know that if you active certain portions of the brain, and inhibit others - you can take a completely normal and healthy person and make them different. We know that massive head injuries result in various behavioral and functional changes as well. Did they also lose their free will part? How about people with Down syndrome. Have they choosen to be this way? We know that their genetics may be the easiest explanation for their behavior, but if we introduce the concept of free will - then we've got some explaining to do.
Free will makes a lot of assumptions about how our brains work. None of these assumptions are really founded in what we know about brain function in the new, emerging field of neuroscience.
Well, we only know what about, 10% of the brain does? And even then we don't know how it works. Asking where it is to mock a lack of an answer is kind of a null argument. You don't know where determinism is, either.
As for losing free will to brain damage, yes I think that's entirely possible. Just like you said, the brain can be altered, damaged, even born flawed, all denying it the ability to fiction as it needs to. In order for a will to be free, you need the capability to form a will, and the faculties to pursue it.
I believe you're missing my point. We do know a lot about our brains, what shutting off certain sides can result in (like stokes). But I don't think you're grasping the concept of our brains in their totality - we allow it to work automatically, breathe for us, tell us to eat, tell us to beat our hearts. But suddenly and inexplicable were also able to control only our thoughts and actions without those also being automatic. Instead we claim to have control over them, althought there is no reason to believe that if we inhibited a certain part of that brain, or exposed it to oxytocin perhaps - that we wouldn't act differently.
That going through caffeine withdrawal is a choice, and not the product of our brains requiring more of the chemical it wants. Up to what point can you really claim to be in control of any of those things?
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2013, 01:41:27 AM
Your argument makes no sense, you can ponder a choice before it takes place and predict the outcomes. It would take a very odd person who cannot predict an outcome or explain why he would do it beforehand.
I'm postulating the idea that competing thoughts, desires and intentions are happening on the level of the brain - a product of your socialization, genetics, luck and life experience. We're only capable of rationalizing things that ultimately HAVE happened as a result.
Edit: since I've got some downtime between critical responses. There is not a single obese person who could not afford to lose weight. But if they find their interest to hit the gym outweighed by their desire to eat a chocolate cake? What can we make of this latter desire to be unhealthy vs, taking steps toward what would only be considered good for you? Well our genetics certainly think that eating cake is better, you don't have to go out and hunt it. Our upbringing may certainly give some insight. Can you just get up and motivate yourself to work out? Sure. But it's the same process used to avoid working out - it was what you were going to do anyway:
I disagree with that. Even the automatic functions of the body can be controlled by will, and have their automation turned off. I can stop breathing right now. It's even possible to increase, slow, even stop ones own heartrate through pure force of will. How is any of that even relevant to the conversation of free will? I'm not following your point, there.
As your fat people analogy, it just sounds like you don't understand what it's like to be fat. While, yes, being overweight is unhealthy and anyone obese would be better off losing weight, it's not so cut and dry as you seem to think. You're talking about breaking old habits and forming new ones, which is not as simple as a "turn off the bad eating habit switch and turn on the good exercise switch." You're getting into an argument of willpower which is a very different (albeit related) issue to free will.
You see what I'm saying, right?
Do we have free will? Or our actions controlled by a higher being that gives us the illusion of free will? And if someone is destined to do something, then does that person have free will? The ancient Greeks believed in something akin to this, while the Titans still ruled.
As far as I am concerned, you don't. According to Loki, Freedom is life's great lie and does not exist, except for him. And, you know, Loki IS A GOD, so...
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 03:34:20 AM
I disagree with that. Even the automatic functions of the body can be controlled by will, and have their automation turned off. I can stop breathing right now. It's even possible to increase, slow, even stop ones own heartrate through pure force of will. How is any of that even relevant to the conversation of free will? I'm not following your point, there.
As your fat people analogy, it just sounds like you don't understand what it's like to be fat. While, yes, being overweight is unhealthy and anyone obese would be better off losing weight, it's not so cut and dry as you seem to think. You're talking about breaking old habits and forming new ones, which is not as simple as a "turn off the bad eating habit switch and turn on the good exercise switch." You're getting into an argument of willpower which is a very different (albeit related) issue to free will.
You see what I'm saying, right?
To stop your breathing is to merely attempt to prove you consciousness is in charge, and the heart thing I've never heard of an find it a vacuous assertion. It is quite clear you do not understand what I'm attempting to explain. Perhaps the Internet is not the best place to communicate such important and complex ideas.
As far as I'm concerned willpower is the same as free will. It would have to be. If you are truly free to author your own thoughts, intentions and actions, I find people's inability to change incongruous. What does free will mean to you then? Is it just our ability to measure competing desires? All free will seems to be saying at that point is "I could have chosen (and done) otherwise." But there is only one future, and you're only able to go forward.
New fMRI and other improved measurement techniques are revealing more of the physical workings of the brain, undermining our naive dualism. It all suggests the possibility that human behavior could be predicted much more accurately. In certain brain studies it has been found possible to predict simple decisions some seconds ahead of the apparent time of conscious decision making has occurred.
The problem for free will is that both determinism and randomness make it impossible to exist. And the unfortunate dualist is there wondering "what am I in control of". Also, what does someone without free will act like? If this extra portion of our brains/souls that allows us to alter the cause/effect actions of our brains was specifically damaged in a car accident, or ravaged by a virus - how would that person behave? It suggest there would be no change, certainly were capable of acting without free will.
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2013, 03:39:59 AM
How do you account for planning and actions that are clearly preconceived?
Wonderful question. I would actually ask the same of free will people. How do you reconcile the fact that you can plan and preconceived of making possible choices, ultimately to be let down? How does one find their inability to put down a television remote and go for a walk? If its like Gorzo said, you take Free Will and break it down again into more, different, complex parts.
The future only happens one specific way. When consciousness intervenes and influences ("exerts" control) over one's conscious state - Where does the impetus come from? What wills this force into existence, and what are it and it's source made of?
Edit: i realized that i perhaps deflected the argument, but it was difficult not to, taking into consideration previous statements I made about a similar question. Essentially planning and being creative, thinking about how to tackle certain things are the product of consciousness. Consciousness is the product of our brains in various states. We're not compelled to plan different ways to conquer things we have no such power to control, so we don't. We do however take pride in the facts that our brains are able to accomplish goals that we perceive as obtainable. It's a bit of a selection bias. Where our remembering self holds onto moments where we felt we willed ourselves to succeed, and simply forget the times we've been unable to do so. Selection bias (confirmation bias) is an important tool for humans - and a necessary element for our learning.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 03:34:20 AM
I disagree with that. Even the automatic functions of the body can be controlled by will, and have their automation turned off. I can stop breathing right now. It's even possible to increase, slow, even stop ones own heartrate through pure force of will. How is any of that even relevant to the conversation of free will? I'm not following your point, there.
As your fat people analogy, it just sounds like you don't understand what it's like to be fat. While, yes, being overweight is unhealthy and anyone obese would be better off losing weight, it's not so cut and dry as you seem to think. You're talking about breaking old habits and forming new ones, which is not as simple as a "turn off the bad eating habit switch and turn on the good exercise switch." You're getting into an argument of willpower which is a very different (albeit related) issue to free will.
You see what I'm saying, right?
This isn't quite true. You can control SOME automatic functions such as breathing by pure thought but things such as blood pressure cannot be.
I never said ALL of them can be controlled. I just gave a couple examples. That were completely blown off, labeled as 'vacuous,' and then I was told I was unwilling to change, all with an insulting tone ;)
You got me, mr. pot. I'm black.
Come on, DC, you're better than that :P you don't have to agree with me, but down-talking at me like that accomplishes nothing but to end the conversation.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 12:58:45 PM
I never said ALL of them can be controlled. I just gave a couple examples. That were completely blown off, labeled as 'vacuous,' and then I was told I was unwilling to change, all with an insulting tone ;)
You got me, mr. pot. I'm black.
Come on, DC, you're better than that :P you don't have to agree with me, but down-talking at me like that accomplishes nothing but to end the conversation.
This is how I feel about Dudecore ;) and there is a man who can control his body temperature at will. I can control my thoughts as well as my actions. Our future is not predetermined, although it may seem this way because there can only ever be one final outcome in a situation.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 12:58:45 PM
I never said ALL of them can be controlled. I just gave a couple examples. That were completely blown off, labeled as 'vacuous,' and then I was told I was unwilling to change, all with an insulting tone ;)
You got me, mr. pot. I'm black.
Come on, DC, you're better than that :P you don't have to agree with me, but down-talking at me like that accomplishes nothing but to end the conversation.
Well im insulted you took it that. I would want nothing more then end this conversation with you.
We know at least philosophically and scientifically that free will is a non-starter. We can see that people think about things several seconds before they actually do them. I believe people struggle to admit this. However our mental life is caused, it cause either by some prior causes or some randomness intruding.
Sometimes in the course of existence you have to understand some pretty harsh realities. Whenever is the day you realize god does not exist - it may hurt, but you'll be better. Now imagine your brain is like someone at a computer: determining what you feel, and do, and say, and want. Then lets say for the sake of inclusion, occasionally this person threw some dice and introduced from random effects (on behalf of your genes and whatnot). We'd have a pretty simple to understand model of how determinism works, and see how there is no room for free will.
Neuroscience is born of the fact that everything we experience, care about, every instance of something mattering for us is in essence a state of our brain.
In either event. About to install iOS 7. So I may not be seen or heard from again (at least temporarily).
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 12:42:49 AM
I love this topic. And the answer is "no". We do not have free will, it is an illusion (and powerful at that). We are not little causal agents, were not the authors of our brains - we are in essence the sum of all our experience, genetics, upbringing, social strata and some luck throw in.
"If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution." - Sam
Harris
Luck. You can affect that. Just use the skill, Luke.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:43:27 AMBut there is only one future, and you're only able to go forward.
According to current physics, is that indeed true?
Quote from: Piotr on September 18, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 12:42:49 AM
I love this topic. And the answer is "no". We do not have free will, it is an illusion (and powerful at that). We are not little causal agents, were not the authors of our brains - we are in essence the sum of all our experience, genetics, upbringing, social strata and some luck throw in.
"If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution." - Sam
Harris
Luck. You can affect that. Just use the skill, Luke.
To a degree. But in which ways is someone responcible for being bald, middle-aged and bankrupted by the death of a spouse? In some ways were extremely lucky to even be born in this century, and much of our success can be attributed to the helping hands of other.
We couldn't say a migrant worker in Iraq as having chosen their fate in any real way. Their war torn country almost assures they'd be unable to be lucky enough to escape given their circumstances. Still, there will always be folks who say "pick yourself up by your boot straps". Those folks are actually overlooking the deterministic factors they have in store.
Quote from: Piotr on September 18, 2013, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:43:27 AMBut there is only one future, and you're only able to go forward.
According to current physics, is that indeed true?
Well we're operating under the assumption that everything has happened in the past has indeed happened. If we want to go with a multiverse angle, we certainly can philosophize.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 01:55:34 PM
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 12:58:45 PM
I never said ALL of them can be controlled. I just gave a couple examples. That were completely blown off, labeled as 'vacuous,' and then I was told I was unwilling to change, all with an insulting tone ;)
You got me, mr. pot. I'm black.
Come on, DC, you're better than that :P you don't have to agree with me, but down-talking at me like that accomplishes nothing but to end the conversation.
Well im insulted you took it that. I would want nothing more then end this conversation with you.
We know at least philosophically and scientifically that free will is a non-starter. We can see that people think about things several seconds before they actually do them. I believe people struggle to admit this. However our mental life is caused, it cause either by some prior causes or some randomness intruding.
Sometimes in the course of existence you have to understand some pretty harsh realities. Whenever is the day you realize god does not exist - it may hurt, but you'll be better. Now imagine your brain is like someone at a computer: determining what you feel, and do, and say, and want. Then lets say for the sake of inclusion, occasionally this person threw some dice and introduced from random effects (on behalf of your genes and whatnot). We'd have a pretty simple to understand model of how determinism works, and see how there is no room for free will.
Neuroscience is born of the fact that everything we experience, care about, every instance of something mattering for us is in essence a state of our brain.
Now when you word it like this, it's much clearer to me what you mean, and I can agree with you (mostly) on these things. I think we may disagree on what free will means, though :P determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive the way I see it.
I do have to disagree that atheism makes you automatically better off, for example, but that's a different discussion. It may be better for you, and many people, and I support that 100%. But many people find comfort in their religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, and it improves their lives. And I support that 100%, too. It's important to remember that everyone is different, and there's a reason pretty much every language has a version of the phrase "different strokes for different folks." Your way (nor my way) isn't the right way for everyone. Don't expect it to be.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 18, 2013, 04:20:26 PM
I do have to disagree that atheism makes you automatically better off, for example, but that's a different discussion. It may be better for you, and many people, and I support that 100%. But many people find comfort in their religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, and it improves their lives. And I support that 100%, too. It's important to remember that everyone is different, and there's a reason pretty much every language has a version of the phrase "different strokes for different folks." Your way (nor my way) isn't the right way for everyone. Don't expect it to be.
It was just an example of a something that is uncomfortable to consider for people who have held certain beliefs for some time.
I feel as though the idea in the "utility of belief" is rather silly (in the face of all the evidence to the contrary). People who believe that religion is useful, and gives certain folks a moral compass. It does disturb me when non-religious people say "well you and I don't need religion, but those OTHER people do." I think that believing in religion is closing yourself off of human creativity and collaboration - as if it were the only system of morals to ever exist. Be it as it may, I did make a joke in another thread that got out of hand. I'm not staunchly anti-religious, just wish for more out of people.
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Because of subjectivity.
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
perhaps I am not my brain, perhaps my brain is just an organ within my body.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Because of subjectivity.
and how could we have this subjective opinion?
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Because of subjectivity.
and how could we have this subjective opinion?
Subjectivity is a state of our brain. We can even be mistaken about our subjectivity, we can occupy any number of different states of subjectivity.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Because of subjectivity.
and how could we have this subjective opinion?
Subjectivity is a state of our brain. We can even be mistaken about our subjectivity, we can occupy any number of different states of subjectivity.
how can we switch states of subjectivity? And if that's so, why don't we switch at random?
I am Jack's colon. I get cancer, I kill Jack.
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Because of subjectivity.
and how could we have this subjective opinion?
Subjectivity is a state of our brain. We can even be mistaken about our subjectivity, we can occupy any number of different states of subjectivity.
how can we switch states of subjectivity? And if that's so, why don't we switch at random?
To randomly change states of subjectivity wouldn't make any sense, as though our brains would know the difference in advance. We change subjectivity as it relates to our jobs, social group, world view, beliefs and values. It does not mean were in control of those things, just that we view things subjectively in retrospect.
Dudecore. I value your sense of reason and your grasp of philosophy. As in past discussions you've opened my eyes to terminology and ideas that are completley new and compelling. So thank you. But I'm troubled by what I see as a tendency to teeter anywhere near the correlation = causation error and assuming that our crude understandings of neuroscience, sociology, history etc somehow negates the likelihood of sentient choice smacks of that mistake. There are far too many unknowns, variables and contradictions in human behavior and physiology to reasonably assume we operate by a predetermined set of stimulus/responses.
Or that we don't.
And so, like Gorzo, if I understand him, I tend toward the likelyhood that it's somewhere in the middle. I believe that with each advance in neuroscience we may be developing a better understanding of the mechanics of free will. Simply because a thing can be explained does not preclude the possibility of other explanations. As always you've certainly built a solid house of rationality but sometimes those blocks of reason block your ability to indulge in other POVs.
Case in point:
I would wish for more for you than to close yourself off to a whole facet of human collaboration and creativity like religion.
Strong words from me but I kind of think you and your thoughtful views are worth the time it takes for me to disagree.
Well said, Langku. That's more or less what I wanted to say but failed to put it into as meaningful of words :P
I'd also like to add that logical fallacies are a bitch. For everyone. Myself included. I find myself struggling with emotional reasoning (Argument from incredulity fallacy) somewhat often, but I feel that learning about such things helps me understand my own logical faults, recognize them, and better my ability to deal with them in both myself and others as time progresses.
P.S. Once you start learning about different logical fallacies, it's kind of fun to start noticing them in other people's thought patterns.
P.P.S. They get really annoyed when you point them out. :D
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 10:03:29 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 18, 2013, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 18, 2013, 09:37:07 PM
Why do we say "my brain"? The brain is calling itself "my brain"? Does this make any sense? How should the brain refer to itself if it doesn't have free will?
Because of subjectivity.
and how could we have this subjective opinion?
Subjectivity is a state of our brain. We can even be mistaken about our subjectivity, we can occupy any number of different states of subjectivity.
how can we switch states of subjectivity? And if that's so, why don't we switch at random?
To randomly change states of subjectivity wouldn't make any sense, as though our brains would know the difference in advance. We change subjectivity as it relates to our jobs, social group, world view, beliefs and values. It does not mean were in control of those things, just that we view things subjectively in retrospect.
the other day I was heading somewhere, but as a split second decision decided to head in another direction. Explain that
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 19, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
The other day I was heading somewhere, but as a split second decision decided to head in another direction. Explain that
You are mistaken about your experience in choosing to head the other direction. It was thought about it way before hand. This is part of the illusion of choice that most people cannot get over. It feels so strong and feels so real.
Langku, elegant and well spoken as always. I understand many people's skeptism in regards to determinism, and their belief in the ghost in the machine. Let's go with free will for a second. Let's say it is real:
🔹 the entire field of Psychology is now closed. Since we cannot draw parrallels between someone's actions and known states of the brain - we have absolutely no predictive value. Depressed people act completely different then one another. All sorts of clinical issues go un-diagnosed because people with mental illness are essentially choosing to have it - or at least behaving in ways that their self-authoring minds let them.
🔹clinical psychologists have no real purpose. When pharmaceutical comes do R&D on drugs they change your brain chemistry, this directly correlates to changes in behavior. If this is accomplished but the users still somehow are able to change their brain chemistry to begin with/CHOOSE what to do - which thing is working? The drugs or the free will?
🔹the field of cognitive neuroscience is simply mistaken about how the brain works. Instead of tracking states of the brain and running experiments (especially suggestive subliminal tests where people "choose" exactly what they're suggested). Instead of the further advancement of such a field, we'd be content to say there is another part of our brains, outside of our brains, that allows us to make choices that we have absolutely no clue why we did so.
I think compatiblists like Gorzo and you are solving the problem of free will by completely ignoring it. I don't see your version of free will as doing all that much at all. It is not the version of free Will people like Birdbrain believe they have. Compatibilism is then only real philosophically respectable position to take on the matter of free will - as it is scientifically and philosophically settled that determinism is the way out brains are controlled (with some saying that some free will is sprinkled in).
What ultimately I think the problem is, and it is seen with many of these debates I get into.
🔹Determinism eventually gets confused with Fatalism.
🔹Someone says "I had 2 options and I chose one" - completely glossing over the near essays worth of things I've said on the subject.
🔹"If my brain is determined for me, then I am not responcible for murder". While that is true, if one is going to murder a human being - then they were going to murder. If you have the brain of a psychopath, then you've got the brain of a psychopath. It does not mean we shouldn't lock you up, you are a danger to the public. But dangerous criminals can be seen as faulty clockwork, and unfortunate to be who they are.
I think that is what free will believers want the most, to be able to blame individuals for all of their problems. To blame them for their behavior. To say "I have chosen to be successful and I am the only reason." Murderers kill people they choose to do the wrong thing, drug addicts (sometimes they waffle a bit on this) choose to take illegal drugs. Homeless people are lazy and put themselves into that position.
Determinists don't say do not try, always try to get better, always try to lose weight, always attempt to do better. If you still believe in free will - more power to you! Whatever it takes to feel better and accomplish goals. I hopefully explained myself well enough to convince some people here. Believing in free will is not harmful, unless we set up a system of laws that does no reflect what we know about the brain, which we have done, but what is harmful is being delusional. It believing in free will helps you get up, by all means, and it doesn't make anyone a bad person. Do understand that free will is an illusion, our personal feeling of agency and authorship are subjective brain states about which we are mistaken.
Let's run a free will test: Everyone think of a famous person. Got one? Good. Who was it?
If you are a religious/spiritual person, I have found verses from the Qu'ran and the Bible that makes it sound like we have some free will, but not totally. Look up Surat Al Kahf (18):23-24 and James 4:13-15 NIV
Quote from: Langku on September 19, 2013, 03:13:07 AM
I would wish for more for you than to close yourself off to a whole facet of human collaboration and creativity like religion.
Strong words from me but I kind of think you and your thoughtful views are worth the time it takes for me to disagree.
I am not quite sure what you're getting at. I grew up religious, like most people, because I was indoctrinated. I also feel as though I'm not missing all that much, based on the principles that Christians and such believe the earth was created by a human. They've shut themselves off experience about how the natural world works, and how science works, how logic works and how morality works.
Does that mean I do not talk to Christians? Does that mean I do not work with them? Does that mean I will not have proper discourse with them? Of course not. I may even respect a few of them 😉
Quote from: rarehuntertay on September 19, 2013, 09:22:38 AM
If you are a religious/spiritual person, I have found verses from the Qu'ran and the Bible that makes it sound like we have some free will, but not totally. Look up Surat Al Kahf (18):23-24 and James 4:13-15 NIV
This ultimately is one of my major grievances against Catholicism. They essentially postulate that god gave us a the free will to do evil/good. But if we know that free will does not exist, this argument dissolves. An entire crux of the bible is completely false.
I think that is one of the reasons Christians and such NEED free will to exist, it is in their holy book. I can also see how perhaps Christians would think of determinism as "another attack on religious sensibilities". What these people often miss is the fact that they will not debate the issues, will not present new facts, but will instead appeal to the idea that they're being picked on, and beliefs insulted - without ever actually debating what was said.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 19, 2013, 09:27:19 AM
Quote from: Langku on September 19, 2013, 03:13:07 AM
I would wish for more for you than to close yourself off to a whole facet of human collaboration and creativity like religion.
Strong words from me but I kind of think you and your thoughtful views are worth the time it takes for me to disagree.
I am not quite sure what you're getting at. I grew up religious, like most people, because I was indoctrinated. I also feel as though I'm not missing all that much, based on the principles that Christians and such believe the earth was created by a human. They've shut themselves off experience about how the natural world works, and how science works, how logic works and how morality works.
Does that mean I do not talk to Christians? Does that mean I do not work with them? Does that mean I will not have proper discourse with them? Of course not. I may even respect a few of them 😉
(Christians don't believe that the Earth was created by a human, and they also do not reject science, the world, logic or morality. Thanks for trying.)
Quote from: IceScythe on September 19, 2013, 10:01:29 AM
(Christians don't believe that the Earth was created by a human, and they also do not reject science, the world, logic or morality. Thanks for trying.)
Human was sort of short hand for a creator god. Thanks for adding so much, as usual.
Why don't we keep the same state? And how come someone can chose to stop a habit, and keep at it even though the habit still overpowers them?
Quote from: Birdbrain on September 19, 2013, 10:11:37 AM
Why don't we keep the same state? And how come someone can chose to stop a habit, and keep at it even though the habit still overpowers them?
For what reason would maintaining the same brain state be important or benefittial to anyone?
Genetics, luck, upbringing, social, and environmental are all deterministic factors. Given that, as intellegent as you are, construct a way that those factors can contribute to drug addiction. Answer your own question from the perspective of a determinist, I will correct you if you're wrong about any thing.
Look at the cause and effect relationships between everything.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 19, 2013, 10:09:27 AM
Quote from: IceScythe on September 19, 2013, 10:01:29 AM
(Christians don't believe that the Earth was created by a human, and they also do not reject science, the world, logic or morality. Thanks for trying.)
Human was sort of short hand for a creator god. Thanks for adding so much, as usual.
God is not made in the image of man, man is made in the image of God. you are very welcome sir, as i always try to add more to any conversation.
I'm not sure what a determinist is, though I'll try.
Someone has a habit. Whether biting there nails or something worse. Yet there brain through repetition has made pathways that basically make it easier, automatic even. Yet the person is determined to stop it. So they start replacing the behavior with another behavior. Or through distraction or something. Pretty soon, they have that pathway in disrepair and can start ignoring it. The question is though, what caused the initial want to change in the first place?
Quote from: rarehuntertay on September 19, 2013, 09:22:38 AM
If you are a religious/spiritual person, I have found verses from the Qu'ran and the Bible that makes it sound like we have some free will, but not totally. Look up Surat Al Kahf (18):23-24 and James 4:13-15 NIV
And if you are more into science, modern physics and the concepts of relativity and quantum uncertainty and the dual model of light allow for plenty of systemic unpredictability in reality to allow for free will based on science.
Galleleo was a Christian