'We' do not know this. Apparently you do. You didn't state that science confirms this I notice.Dachshund wrote: ↑July 13th, 2018, 10:25 pmHalc, right now, as you ( a living human being) read this post you are not just an ensemble of physical particles, because you also possess consciousness. Right now you have a both a physical "flesh and blood" body PLUS a waking consciousness ( phenomenal/mental domain); and this waking consciousness does really /actually exist - no scientist denies this. In short, we know that there is such a thing as human diurnal consciousness, and we know that whatever is the essential "stuff" of which it is comprised, that "stuff" is certainly not physical matter of the kind that the "fundamental particles" (atoms, molecules, ions, etc.) you say that human beings ( like yourself at this moment) are exclusively comprised of. Right ?
Regards
Dachshund
Free will
- Halc
- Posts: 405
- Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm
Re: Free will
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Free will
What you are doing is reducing act of will to random events - that does not meet your needs.LuckyR wrote: ↑July 14th, 2018, 4:41 amDon't misunderstand me. I personally don't believe in Pre-determination, thus I do believe in Free Will. Therefore I agree with you that not only is the future not predictable due to a lack of knowledge about innumerable variables and a lack of computing power, it is truly not yet determined.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 13th, 2018, 2:52 am
"pre-" is redundant.
I know you disagree, you said that already. "Pre-" is till redundant, as nothing is yet written.
We are writing the future as we go, and each new day is a novel response to a multiplicity of causality.
The future remains a series of blank pages, for most people. Why not get out of your rut, which you seem dedicated to stay in and try something new. Give up your job and gor for a very long walk!
We you to do that this post would be a contribution to the cause of you doing that, and the rest would be determined by your circumstances, and your personality.
Of course most, if all physical situations are governed by causality and are determined. In my view behavior is a special case that is not solely determined by the paths of subatomic particles. Thus: Free Will.
If my acts of will are not fully determined by my experience then they are useless and meaningless.
If you want to do special case pleading, you need a powerful argument. I see nothing of the kind here.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Free will
Anyone can tell my post gave a synopsis and my conclusion, not an exhaustive reasoning for how I got there.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 15th, 2018, 4:17 amWhat you are doing is reducing act of will to random events - that does not meet your needs.LuckyR wrote: ↑July 14th, 2018, 4:41 am
Don't misunderstand me. I personally don't believe in Pre-determination, thus I do believe in Free Will. Therefore I agree with you that not only is the future not predictable due to a lack of knowledge about innumerable variables and a lack of computing power, it is truly not yet determined.
Of course most, if all physical situations are governed by causality and are determined. In my view behavior is a special case that is not solely determined by the paths of subatomic particles. Thus: Free Will.
If my acts of will are not fully determined by my experience then they are useless and meaningless.
If you want to do special case pleading, you need a powerful argument. I see nothing of the kind here.
What you call "fully determined" is lazy shorthand for a combination of post hoc rationalizations and known true influences on behavior (choices). If by causality and/or determination you mean true, verifiable influencers that predict human choices much better than chance, yet far from 100% accuracy, then we are in agreement.
If OTOH, you say that there are numerous, as yet undiscovered such influencers and if we could somehow (at some future time) know about them all, then human choices could be fully predictable, my comments would be the following: in my opinion, we'll never be able to fully understand all of these influencers, such as past experiences, brain neurochemistry/wiring, psychology etc, but as a thought experiment I don't have a problem with putting all of these current unknowns into a black box and announcing that "this" (as yet unknown and perhaps unknowable) thing fully determines, causes and/or predicts human behavior.
Barring the above, the burden of proof shifts to determinists to show the steps whereby human choices are, in fact determined, since all statistical data and analysis shows the opposite.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Free will
I thought I was alone in this view!
My reasoning is that subjective experience tells us all that we have free will. The burden of proof should be on the one who wishes to believe something not able to be perceived (like God), or to deny something which is perceived (like free will).
I am curious what statistical evidence you are referencing which shows actions are not determined.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Free will
You are squirming.LuckyR wrote: ↑July 15th, 2018, 6:21 amAnyone can tell my post gave a synopsis and my conclusion, not an exhaustive reasoning for how I got there.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 15th, 2018, 4:17 am
What you are doing is reducing act of will to random events - that does not meet your needs.
If my acts of will are not fully determined by my experience then they are useless and meaningless.
If you want to do special case pleading, you need a powerful argument. I see nothing of the kind here.
What you call "fully determined" is lazy shorthand for a combination of post hoc rationalizations and known true influences on behavior (choices). If by causality and/or determination you mean true, verifiable influencers that predict human choices much better than chance, yet far from 100% accuracy, then we are in agreement.
If OTOH, you say that there are numerous, as yet undiscovered such influencers and if we could somehow (at some future time) know about them all, then human choices could be fully predictable, my comments would be the following: in my opinion, we'll never be able to fully understand all of these influencers, such as past experiences, brain neurochemistry/wiring, psychology etc, but as a thought experiment I don't have a problem with putting all of these current unknowns into a black box and announcing that "this" (as yet unknown and perhaps unknowable) thing fully determines, causes and/or predicts human behavior.
Barring the above, the burden of proof shifts to determinists to show the steps whereby human choices are, in fact determined, since all statistical data and analysis shows the opposite.
But then you are determined to do so since that is your personality.
There is no burden of proof against things being caused by other things. The problem seems to be the absurd notion that you claim; that you can choose without antecedence, ex nihilo, as if such a choice would be meaningful or useful.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Free will
Wrong.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 13th, 2018, 3:13 pm "... emotions, reasoning and cognitive errors e.c.t..."
These are all determined by physical states of cerebral matter, without exception.
To be clear I said
You are over simplifying the problem of the relationship between the physical brain and the mind. Individual personalities do not emerge due to the particular arrangement of particles which our brains consist of. The individual mind is a result of genetic variations and upbringing, our experiences alter the neurological pathways between neurons making one combination of synapses more probable than another.Because the conscious experience is not solely contingent on matter, as I also said we have to consider the effects of emotions, reasoning and cognitive errors e.c.t
Cerebral matter may determine a single function directly prior, however this is just one step in an intricate web of causal processes and relationships from biochemical and external influences.
Traumatic experiences will litterally cause the rearrangement of synapses which will consequently cause the subject to react/respond in a specific manner under certain future circumstances. The conscious experience doesn't operate independently from the physical brain just as neuro pathways won't form in specific sequences without the information gained from conscious experiences. We can't study or analyse brain matter to determine someone's favourite color.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Free will
First of all I am addressing Free Will as specifically applied to human behavior (choices).chewybrian wrote: ↑July 15th, 2018, 7:30 amI thought I was alone in this view!
My reasoning is that subjective experience tells us all that we have free will. The burden of proof should be on the one who wishes to believe something not able to be perceived (like God), or to deny something which is perceived (like free will).
I am curious what statistical evidence you are referencing which shows actions are not determined.
Happy to help out. The proof of determination is the prospective use of the causes or determining factors of a potential action to successfully predict future actions. This has been done for centuries with the behavior of billiard balls and planets, yet has never been demonstrated with human behavior. True, analysis of various factors such as personality, diagnoses such as depression, post-traumatic stress etc can predict certain behaviors/choices better than blind guessing (random choices), yet far from 100% accuracy. Imagine if our understanding of Newtonian mechanics was so poor that we could predict the behavior of billiard balls 30% of the time! Would an inhabitant of that universe say that a billiard ball's behavior was determined or that they acted as if they "chose" what to do on their own? That's where we are with "determining" human behavior.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Free will
I agree with you about the burden of proof. But, you seem to now be saying that there is no proof of determinism, rather than saying there is positive proof of free will, which is what I thought I saw when I read:LuckyR wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 9:25 am
First of all I am addressing Free Will as specifically applied to human behavior (choices).
Happy to help out. The proof of determination is the prospective use of the causes or determining factors of a potential action to successfully predict future actions. This has been done for centuries with the behavior of billiard balls and planets, yet has never been demonstrated with human behavior. True, analysis of various factors such as personality, diagnoses such as depression, post-traumatic stress etc can predict certain behaviors/choices better than blind guessing (random choices), yet far from 100% accuracy. Imagine if our understanding of Newtonian mechanics was so poor that we could predict the behavior of billiard balls 30% of the time! Would an inhabitant of that universe say that a billiard ball's behavior was determined or that they acted as if they "chose" what to do on their own? That's where we are with "determining" human behavior.
Watching humans tends to show they have free will, but the determinist will simply say that the many factors which go into behavior are too much for us to calculate and use to accurately predict behavior. I thought we had no experiments to show free will or determinism to be valid, and I guess this is still the case (and may always be).
I thought you had some new info, but I'll settle for your vote on the burden of proof.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Free will
Well, I meant that all statistical data and analysis of the prediction of human behavior is consistent with Free Will, but as you know that is not proof, since you can only prove a positive (Determinism), not a negative, that is the absence of Determinism (Free Will). That has nothing to do with me, that is the way logic works.chewybrian wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 10:02 amI agree with you about the burden of proof. But, you seem to now be saying that there is no proof of determinism, rather than saying there is positive proof of free will, which is what I thought I saw when I read:LuckyR wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 9:25 am
First of all I am addressing Free Will as specifically applied to human behavior (choices).
Happy to help out. The proof of determination is the prospective use of the causes or determining factors of a potential action to successfully predict future actions. This has been done for centuries with the behavior of billiard balls and planets, yet has never been demonstrated with human behavior. True, analysis of various factors such as personality, diagnoses such as depression, post-traumatic stress etc can predict certain behaviors/choices better than blind guessing (random choices), yet far from 100% accuracy. Imagine if our understanding of Newtonian mechanics was so poor that we could predict the behavior of billiard balls 30% of the time! Would an inhabitant of that universe say that a billiard ball's behavior was determined or that they acted as if they "chose" what to do on their own? That's where we are with "determining" human behavior.
Watching humans tends to show they have free will, but the determinist will simply say that the many factors which go into behavior are too much for us to calculate and use to accurately predict behavior. I thought we had no experiments to show free will or determinism to be valid, and I guess this is still the case (and may always be).
I thought you had some new info, but I'll settle for your vote on the burden of proof.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Free will
I don't see the straw man?chewybrian wrote: ↑July 12th, 2018, 11:36 amYou are, perhaps unintentionally, creating a straw man to argue against. What proponent of free will is saying that they are Zeus or Superman or Wonder Woman? I'm not even Aquaman! I'm just a guy who can decide to change the course of his life, and break bad habits and create new and better ones if I make the effort. We all have this super power.Thinking critical wrote: ↑July 12th, 2018, 8:59 amFree will is the ability to act at our own discretion without the constraints of necessity.
Thanks he is very clear in his explanation however I'm still not convinced?The stoic mindset is difficult for people to get their head around if they have not both read and practiced stoic philosophy. Again I highly recommend you give this 5 minutes and jump in at about 25:10:
Thinking critical wrote: ↑July 12th, 2018, 8:59 amSo let me ask you a question, do you have ability to simply stop believing you have free will?
I do not believe people can simply will themselves to believe a proposition is true if they think it is wrong, to do this would create a paradox, paradoxes can not be logically valid.Yes!
The choice to believe something or not is contingent on reason, there is a process to explain what causes us to access knowledge from the unique angle we do which determines the conclusion we reach. As for the choice of ice cream, this is influenced by cravings, bio chemical processes cause emotional responses and motivation which encourages our decision to choose one product over another.
Clearly, many of us here have decided that they don't have free will despite their own experience to the contrary. Presumably, there must have been a time in their predetermined lives that they foolishly believed that they could decide what they wanted at the ice cream truck. Then, they 'grew up' and gave up notions of Santa Claus and free choice between creamsicles and rocket pops. I have made the choice to keep believing that I have free will.
What you have described is not free will, you are still trapped with in the constraints of necessity.2-Think again about what free will really is. It is not the ability to control the outside world--AT ALL! It is the ability to make choices, to control your attitude, to interpret events as you wish (no matter what events may be), and to direct your desires and aversions. If you direct your efforts at the outside world, you may fail, or even create the opposite of the effect you intended. But, you have a great opportunity and a great chance of success if you act INTERNALLY. Change yourself and the way you interpret the world if you want to make progress. For (most) people, whose focus has always been on externals, these ideas may be difficult to accept.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Free will
That's the straw man, right there. Show me a quote from any sane advocate of free will who frames the argument in the way you set it out. Nobody is claiming they have super powers. Having a free will does not mean the universe will conform itself to my wishes. Other people are free to try to stop me, or to misinterpret anything I say . All sorts of bad luck might thwart my plans.Thinking critical wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 6:50 amI don't see the straw man?chewybrian wrote: ↑July 12th, 2018, 11:36 am You are, perhaps unintentionally, creating a straw man to argue against.What you have described is not free will, you are still trapped with in the constraints of necessity.chewybrian wrote: ↑July 12th, 2018, 11:36 am2-Think again about what free will really is. It is not the ability to control the outside world--AT ALL! It is the ability to make choices, to control your attitude, to interpret events as you wish (no matter what events may be), and to direct your desires and aversions...
I'm free to try--that's it! That's free will.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Free will
You are misunderstanding me, every description of free will I have encountered insists that the cognitive experience of the subject is not contingent on a causal process, yet is free from a mechanism where a priori state determines and outcome.chewybrian wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 1:32 pm That's the straw man, right there. Show me a quote from any sane advocate of free will who frames the argument in the way you set it out. Nobody is claiming they have super powers. Having a free will does not mean the universe will conform itself to my wishes. Other people are free to try to stop me, or to misinterpret anything I say . All sorts of bad luck might thwart my plans.
I'm free to try--that's it! That's free will.
You can't walk without putting one foot in front of the other, for this is the nature of walking.
How can you presume to intentionally and wilfully make a conscious effort to think/choose/decide without first utilising the brain functions of a brain that has been shaped and moulded by our past experiences? Thinking requires a causal process where one state or one frame of thought influences the next, for this is the nature of thinking.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Free will
I think rather you are misunderstanding what you have read, and pushing it to an illogical extreme never intended by the authors. Yes, you must be free to act to have a free will, but that means you are free to try to overcome influences, not that you act free from influences. A fat man and a thin man have different paths to tread if they decide to try to run the Boston Marathon.Thinking critical wrote: ↑July 18th, 2018, 6:22 amYou are misunderstanding me, every description of free will I have encountered insists that the cognitive experience of the subject is not contingent on a causal process, yet is free from a mechanism where a priori state determines and outcome.
You can't walk without putting one foot in front of the other, for this is the nature of walking.
How can you presume to intentionally and wilfully make a conscious effort to think/choose/decide without first utilising the brain functions of a brain that has been shaped and moulded by our past experiences? Thinking requires a causal process where one state or one frame of thought influences the next, for this is the nature of thinking.
Framing free will as free from any influence is a weird, abstract, theoretical view of events, like idealism. It might be interesting to think of the possibility, but it is not an intellectually honest position for most of us. Don't you agree that most people who believe in free will also assent to ideas like evolution or habit or addiction? These ideas are not exclusive of free will for anyone but an overactive philosopher. We all have our own unique set of roadblocks and corresponding level of difficulty for any choice we might take.
I was that fat guy when I decided to become an endurance cyclist. I might have been less likely than average to make that choice, and less likely to succeed, but I was not prevented from trying, and I accomplished the goals I set for myself. I am convinced that this event was a demonstration of free will, and I can't make a deterministic description of it without torturing the facts. Was I somehow born with a will destined to be weak until middle age, and then strong? Did I learn something new which drove me, but was unknown to me as a driver? Did I have an unknown brain injury that changed my behavior? Or, did reality simply match my subjective experience that I made a choice?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Free will
Thanks for your false duality.Thinking critical wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 7:32 amWrong.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 13th, 2018, 3:13 pm "... emotions, reasoning and cognitive errors e.c.t..."
These are all determined by physical states of cerebral matter, without exception.
To be clear I saidYou are over simplifying the problem of the relationship between the physical brain and the mind...Because the conscious experience is not solely contingent on matter, as I also said we have to consider the effects of emotions, reasoning and cognitive errors e.c.t
You just do not understand your own prejudice.
"emotions, reasoning and cognitive errors e.c.t.."
- None of these things do, or can exist without neural MATTER. The mind is what the neural matter does.
Please try to use your mind without a brain and see how far you get.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Free will
You clearly don't grasp the nature of the properties of brain matter. There is no functionality within the brain of a dead person. Brain matter still exists, however if neuro activity ceases to function the mind will not emerge and neither will cognitive experiences.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑July 18th, 2018, 10:42 am "emotions, reasoning and cognitive errors e.c.t.."
- None of these things do, or can exist without neural MATTER. The mind is what the neural matter does.
Please try to use your mind without a brain and see how far you get.
I am not rejecting the correlation between the physical brain and it's function, conscious thought is clearly contingent on the neuro processing of brain matter.
What you are neglecting to consider is the WHY, why do synapses interact between neurons down specific pathways in the patterns that they do? This after all is why the individual percieves their own unique subjective reality, it is not because their brains are physically different, it's because their neurons fire differently.
If conscious expressions such as emotions and reason were determined purely from the physical states of conscious matter as you insist, the consequences would deem all areas of human psychology redundant. There is substantial evidence to prove that experiences such as trauma, will alter mental states. The faculties of the mind can be altered mentally through learning and experience resulting in new neurological pathways or neuro networking (expanding the mind) this being the relationship between the mind and the brain I was speaking of.
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