Brain workings and freedom
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
- Contact:
Brain workings and freedom
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Brain workings and freedom
So no, we are not in control of our thoughts, and therefore are not free....
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
Hume observed that when we introspect, we do not detect the self. He inferred that there was no such thing as the self, but this is an unsound inference, because 'I cannot detect the self' does not entail 'there is no self'.
If there is no self apart from the brain, then ultimately the answer to your question must be 'no', because even if the brain can control some of its thinking, it could not control all of its thinking, since this would create an infinite regress. However, if there is a self apart from the brain, then in theory this self could control the brain.
There is no empirical evidence for a self other than the brain, so as things stand, it looks as if the answer to your question is 'no.' This is not a definitive proof, but it's where the smart money is.
1) Perhaps merely the lack of any external factors that would prevent you acting, such as having your hands tied.
2) Perhaps a construct of the brain. I once had the experience of having two selves at once, presumably because my brain was failing to construct a single self properly. I don't recommend it, it's extremely unpleasant.
3) That's the hard problem of consciousness, and I think it is insoluble.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
- Contact:
Re: Brain workings and freedom
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
There is no Free Will in the sense of completely uncaused thoughts/brain configurations. Men's freedom relates to degree of reason that's brought to bear on problems and decisions. The more the reason the more the freedom.Do you think we control the way the brain works to think? If the answer is no.. Do you think we're free?
Personal responsibility relates to autonomous freedom. The more the individual is autonomous the more he is responsible, and that seems to me to be reflected in the law. It's reflected in those judges who seek mitigating circumstances for crimes.
We find that with few exceptions belief in absolute Free Will accompanies punitive judgements.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
Does gravity have the right to make an apple fall to the ground?
If there is no free will, then all such questions are futile. The punishers are no more free to refrain from punishing than the perpetrator is free to refrain from perpetrating.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
But "the punishers" are as a matter of fact those who have the power to punish. Those who have the power to punish are more free than those they punish. It's to do with elites and the others. However in free societies laws constrain the punishers from acting unjustly. Those very laws were made by reasoning not by faith in 'Free Will'.
I don't know where you hail from, CIN, but both the UK and the USA have laws founded upon Magna Carta.
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
You and I, Belindi, are using the word 'free' in quite different ways. You are using it to refer to legal freedom. I am using it to refer to metaphysical freedom. If we understand 'free' in the first of these ways, then I pretty much agree with you (I hail from the UK), but that was not my meaning.Belindi wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 6:12 am
But "the punishers" are as a matter of fact those who have the power to punish. Those who have the power to punish are more free than those they punish. It's to do with elites and the others. However in free societies laws constrain the punishers from acting unjustly. Those very laws were made by reasoning not by faith in 'Free Will'.
I don't know where you hail from, CIN, but both the UK and the USA have laws founded upon Magna Carta.
The metaphysical sense is captured in the question, 'Assuming that I was not in any way coerced, could I have acted differently from the way I did?' If I could not - and the apparent fact that we live in a causally closed universe suggests that I could not - then my action was not free (in the metaphysical sense). My action was 100% determined by earlier causes, and so I could not have acted other than as I did.
Kordofany was asking about the right to punish. I was merely pointing out that if no-one has freedom in the metaphysical sense, all such moral questions are redundant. If my robbing a bank was 100% caused by earlier events, right back to the beginning of the universe, then it is absurd to suggest that I am morally to blame for the robbery. You might as well say the Big Bang was morally to blame for the robbery. Of course I may be held legally to blame, and the punishers may punish me for it, but if none of us have metaphysical freedom of action, then the actions of the legislators in passing the laws, and the actions of the punishers in punishing me for breaking them, are actions they are not (metaphysically) free to desist from, and it is therefore redundant to ask whether they have the right to perform them: they have no choice about whether they perform them or not.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
I was too brief. I agree that nobody has freedom in the metaphysical sense of so-called 'Free Will' as you well explain.CIN wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 8:43 amYou and I, Belindi, are using the word 'free' in quite different ways. You are using it to refer to legal freedom. I am using it to refer to metaphysical freedom. If we understand 'free' in the first of these ways, then I pretty much agree with you (I hail from the UK), but that was not my meaning.Belindi wrote: ↑May 1st, 2018, 6:12 am
But "the punishers" are as a matter of fact those who have the power to punish. Those who have the power to punish are more free than those they punish. It's to do with elites and the others. However in free societies laws constrain the punishers from acting unjustly. Those very laws were made by reasoning not by faith in 'Free Will'.
I don't know where you hail from, CIN, but both the UK and the USA have laws founded upon Magna Carta.
The metaphysical sense is captured in the question, 'Assuming that I was not in any way coerced, could I have acted differently from the way I did?' If I could not - and the apparent fact that we live in a causally closed universe suggests that I could not - then my action was not free (in the metaphysical sense). My action was 100% determined by earlier causes, and so I could not have acted other than as I did.
Kordofany was asking about the right to punish. I was merely pointing out that if no-one has freedom in the metaphysical sense, all such moral questions are redundant. If my robbing a bank was 100% caused by earlier events, right back to the beginning of the universe, then it is absurd to suggest that I am morally to blame for the robbery. You might as well say the Big Bang was morally to blame for the robbery. Of course I may be held legally to blame, and the punishers may punish me for it, but if none of us have metaphysical freedom of action, then the actions of the legislators in passing the laws, and the actions of the punishers in punishing me for breaking them, are actions they are not (metaphysically) free to desist from, and it is therefore redundant to ask whether they have the right to perform them: they have no choice about whether they perform them or not.
I also agree with what you wrote in your second paragraph. What I want to point out is that all this has ethical and political manifestations and is not merely an academic exercise. In an ideal world there would be no blame allocated to anybody, and therefore nobody would be punished or required to change their ways.I say "an ideal world" and by this I mean a world in which everybody is totally reasonable.Obviously this is not the case and so there has to be legal intervention which involves rehabilitation and deterrence. Retribution would of course not be a rationale for punishment. A corollary of this rather left-wing point of view is that if there were 'Free Will' then retribution would be the only rationale for punishing criminals.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
CIN is saying if there is no free will then there are no ethical ramifications. As ethical ramifications require free will? Correct me if I am wrong CIN.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
I think CIN is saying that if there is no free will then there are no metaphysically absolute ramifications. I gather that CIN and I agree that human freedom does not reside in metaphysical Free Will.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
To be honest I've heard arguments along those lines but I'm not 100% sure I get the distinction. Could you perhaps elaborate a little?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023