Brain workings and freedom
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
I presume you did that to construct (poorly) that sentence....
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
I don't see any special ethical ramifications though either way. Can you give an example?
Also I think it's more than fair to say you believe determinism is the most likely. But we exist, which under determinism is impossible. Therefore there can be something else, though what that something else might be is unknown.
Finally there is nothing wrong with not knowing something. Indeed in my experience most people would be more correct on a given subject if they said they didn't know.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
- Contact:
Re: Brain workings and freedom
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
Free Will cannot be explained naturalistically, which is why I introduced God as an example of a non-naturalistic, non-causal force. I personally, in my more rational episodes ,don't believe in God however I can see that God is an explanation among other ontological explanationsCIN wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2018, 2:11 pm I don't think bringing God into it would explain free will. I don't think bringing God in ever explains anything. When trying to explain something (free will, the existence of the universe, whatever) it isn't enough to point at some person who supposedly made it happen; we also need an explanation of HOW they made it happen, otherwise it's like accusing a man of murder without being able to say how he did it. You can't convict a man on that basis alone, because your explanation does not in fact explain.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Brain workings and freedom
There is nothing that is known for certain. "Violet despair" is not a powerful agent with intentions; God is a powerful agent with intentions.
Nothing is absolutely known to us. All we have are narratives. Some people like the narrative which involves an all powerful being who has intentions towards the world which this all powerful being created. In a free society each of us can choose his preferred explanatory story.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Brain workings and freedom
Free will exists in hindsight, we can think back and acknowledge that we had the option to think, act, do something different......however at the time there are always reasons for our choices. A reason will always determine an outcome meaning free will is an illusion......but the illusion itself is real
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Brain workings and freedom
so essentially each person can simply create their own god, as all theists do and abide by their own narrative?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
Why does it need to be? How come you add conditions to my definition of morality but not to other people's definition of morality?"Violet despair" is not a powerful agent with intentions; God is a powerful agent with intentions.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
-
- Posts: 284
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
As I indicated earlier, I strongly disagree with this. God is not an explanation, because we do not know how he is supposed to do what he is supposed to do.
Many people seem to think that God counts as an explanation because he is omnipotent. However, this is not true. Consider this:
Task: explain how the bicycle came to move.
Answer 1: it moved because the cyclist pressed his foot down on the pedal, which transmitted energy to the pedal, this energy then being transferred by means of the chain to the wheels, which were then caused to revolve, which, because of friction between the wheels and the ground, caused the bicycle to move across the ground.
Answer 2: it moved because the cyclist was bicycle-potent (i.e. had the power to move bicycles).
Answer 1 is an explanation. Answer 2 is not. Saying that someone has the power to do something, which is all that can ever be said about God, is not explanatory.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
Well, yes and no. To the intellectual non-curious, it is a placeholder for a "true" explanation. In other words dogma gives the believer something to vocalize when asked "why?"CIN wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2018, 10:08 amAs I indicated earlier, I strongly disagree with this. God is not an explanation, because we do not know how he is supposed to do what he is supposed to do.
Many people seem to think that God counts as an explanation because he is omnipotent. However, this is not true. Consider this:
Task: explain how the bicycle came to move.
Answer 1: it moved because the cyclist pressed his foot down on the pedal, which transmitted energy to the pedal, this energy then being transferred by means of the chain to the wheels, which were then caused to revolve, which, because of friction between the wheels and the ground, caused the bicycle to move across the ground.
Answer 2: it moved because the cyclist was bicycle-potent (i.e. had the power to move bicycles).
Answer 1 is an explanation. Answer 2 is not. Saying that someone has the power to do something, which is all that can ever be said about God, is not explanatory.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Brain workings and freedom
IMO, the value is highest in self-deception, thus it is likely that rather than "I am going to substitute a non-reason for a true reason", the internal conversation is probably "cool, now I have this awesome reason!!".Eduk wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2018, 12:10 pm He is bicycle-potent might serve as a placeholder I guess. It's worse than saying unknown though right? I mean unknown and bicycle-potent convey the exact same amount of explanatory power (i.e. none) but bicycle-potent seems a like a way to pretend you know more than you do. Now pretending you know more than do could be a means of deceiving others (which is normally not great but can be depending on exact circumstances) or of deceiving yourself (which is even less likely to be justifiable than deceiving others).
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Brain workings and freedom
2023/2024 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