[QUOTE=matsta;33901932]Well, good luck trying to say that we actually don't choose what we want based on illusions. I still have to go to sleep cause I want that right now.
PD: yes, I know you'll say I was sleepy, but I chose to go to sleep now and not when I started being sleepy. Anyway, my mind is a complex equation that doesn't exist made with maths that doesn't exist, so it has no sense to debate over this stuff. Peace.[/QUOTE]
ugh. When I said ideas don't exist, I meant they aren't a physical thing. Nevermind that. But going to sleep way after you were already tired doesn't prove free will. Your mind didn't go to sleep right away because it was busy. As I (and a whole lot of other people here have said). The mind is a complex equation. As part of that, it creates the illusion of free will. for all intents and purposes, it is like we have free will. But do we actually have free will? no. Our choices are just chemical reactions.
ad just a question: what religion are you?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33904645]ugh. When I said ideas don't exist, I meant they aren't a physical thing. Nevermind that. But going to sleep way after you were already tired doesn't prove free will. Your mind didn't go to sleep right away because it was busy. As I (and a whole lot of other people here have said). The mind is a complex equation. As part of that, it creates the illusion of free will. for all intents and purposes, it is like we have free will. But do we actually have free will? no. Our choices are just chemical reactions.
ad just a question: what religion are you?[/QUOTE]
As I said before, analysing the human brain will lead you to the conclusion that it is 'machina animata', like the rest of our body. But subjectivity doesn't come anywhere when you do it. When you say that we 'actually' don't have free will you're just saying that in the material universe there is no thing as choice, and you're completely right.
Choice is something a subject is confronted with; it's part of the subjective experience; it's nowhere but there, in subjectivity. When you try to explain our lives by the laws of physics you just forget that it's from our lives (or our experiences) that we obtain laws of physics as we know them. We can't get subjectivity out of 'the equation' just because we are subjects.
And we can try analysing things in a "more objective" point of view, but it would be madness saying we're being completely objective because that would mean that our conclusion are not produced by us. When you analyse something that exists only in subjectivity you don't do it as a third-person observer; when you do it that way you're just not doing it.
PD: I'm an Atheist.
[QUOTE=matsta;33901780]Really you don't get the point. There is nothing apart from experience that can tell you what experience is. It is not that we *can*explain what experience is but others won't understand. We just can't explain it without the help of experience itself.[/QUOTE]
Not true at all. A memory or a thought is caused by a physical state of your brain. You could create a brain with a consciousness that thinks it has experienced all sorts of things that never actually happened. Do you consider those to be "experiences?"
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33905159]Not true at all. A memory or a thought is caused by a physical state of your brain. You could create a brain with a consciousness that thinks it has experienced all sorts of things that never actually happened. Do you consider those to be "experiences?"[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with my point.
[QUOTE=matsta;33904928]As I said before, analysing the human brain will lead you to the conclusion that it is 'machina animata', like the rest of our body. But subjectivity doesn't come anywhere when you do it. When you say that we 'actually' don't have free will you're just saying that in the material universe there is no thing as choice, and you're completely right.
Choice is something a subject is confronted with; it's part of the subjective experience; it's nowhere but there, in subjectivity. When you try to explain our lives by the laws of physics you just forget that it's from our lives (or our experiences) that we obtain laws of physics as we know them. We can't get subjectivity out of 'the equation' just because we are subjects.
And we can try analysing things in a "more objective" point of view, but it would be madness saying we're being completely objective because that would mean that our conclusion are not produced by us. When you analyse something that exists only in subjectivity you don't do it as a third-person observer; when you do it that way you're just not doing it.
PD: I'm an Atheist.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we do get our laws of physics from our experiences. It's called an observation. and why can't I explain our lives with the laws of physics? I can still observe what I do, what other people do. And if there is no free will in the material universe (as both of us believe), how can humans have free will? we are made of matter. We are part of the material universe. all these subjective experiences you talk about are created by the mind. They are part of the illusion.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33905731]Yes, we do get our laws of physics from our experiences. It's called an observation. and why can't I explain our lives with the laws of physics? I can still observe what I do, what other people do. And if there is no free will in the material universe (as both of us believe), how can humans have free will? we are made of matter. We are part of the material universe. all these subjective experiences you talk about are created by the mind. They are part of the illusion.[/QUOTE]
We can have it in subjectivity. All my arguments boil down to the fact that there is a part of subjective experience that can't be described or understood by looking at it from a third-person point of view (as I said before).
[QUOTE=matsta;33906057]We can have it in subjectivity. All my arguments boil down to the fact that there is a part of subjective experience that can't be described or understood by looking at it from a third-person point of view (as I said before).[/QUOTE] maybe it can't. but how does that mean free will exists?
[QUOTE=matsta;33905201]That has nothing to do with my point.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, that is perfectly relevant. If experience can be created by physically manipulating a mind, your argument has no basis.
Okay, as an outside observer let me try my best to clear this communication issue up; it seems likely to me that English is the second language of at least one of you, which might be causing some issues.
Nobody is denying that thoughts, feelings, emotions exist; the point that Johnny and Kakisto are trying to get across is that these are all products of chemical reactions within the organ that is the brain. What reactions occur is determined by both the structure of the brain and the reactions that came before. This means that what we think and do is completely determined by our genetics and our environment, with no third, random/free influence directing us. This means that our actions are 100% the result of predictable, predetermined physical processes, therefore the actions themselves are predetermined.
That said, it's partially an issue of semantics; it IS our "mind" making the decisions, so they are our decisions to make, and in that sense free will does exist. It's just that free will itself is predetermined.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33901587]How does that change anything? A certain range of wavelengths of light cause a stimulus to the brain which manifests as the perception of the color green. The quale that we would call perceiving green is just a manifestation of physical interactions. No one, as far as we know, experiences green without a physical cause.[/QUOTE]
And this folks right here is why we can't see shit when someone kills the lights!
What are peoples thoughts:
What is free will?
"The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."
Regarding the imminent affects of SOPA I find myself thinking how many people actually use the web for free will.
Free will in theory would suggest that individuals each visit different websites for different uses based on your individual thinking and thought patterns. But I'm presuming (based on my experience) that the majority of people just use Facebook/ Youtube/ Forums/ Shopping.
I would summise this from humans basic survival instincts to fit in, perhaps not to be outcast. Which if outcast would lead to death or not finding a suitable mate. I.e. Not in your genes best intentions. Before "hipsters" can counter my argument, it can be seen that even their sub anti-culture follows trends as they look to each other to find similarities to be accepted as "anti-culture".
Free Will would imply an anti society, culture would not exist - something incomprehensible for us, as its culture and society that has led us to being the most successful mammals of our planet. Side note: Do you ever find yourself reading something on Facepunch, not really forming a independant view, or perhaps even agreeing with it, to then see the amount of "dumb" tags and instantly disregard the post as insignificant or wrong/dumb.
I don't think we have free will, our every action and decisions are governed by our perceptions and behaviour. Behaviour that has been constructed from previous experiences of interactions with our culture. It frustrates me in two ways when I hear people saying things like "thats just me" or using phrases to express themselves. Is it language that constrains free will?
At the end of the day were all the same... Fuck I just did it as well.
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33907802]That said, it's partially an issue of semantics; it IS our "mind" making the decisions, so they are our decisions to make, and in that sense free will does exist. It's just that free will itself is predetermined.[/QUOTE]
I think you outlined the main problem here: we're discussing on different topics because 'free will' has not been explicitly defined.
Free will is the ability to choose 'freely', what that 'freely' means for some people is to be freed from our nature. I never said I thought like that. We can't deny that something outside us determines the way in which we think, but it would be too much saying that we are not 'choosing' according to that thinking (to our will). And being 'predictable' doesn't change the fact that we chose.
When you choose between various possibilities you take all of them in consideration and then select one (or some). The fact that someone knows you and knows what you're going to choose doesn't 'eliminate' all those possibilities that you didn't chose.
Of course, we always choose "based on something", that's what a choice is. But choosing based on something is still choosing freely. We're also affected (or even determined) by circumstances, but circumstances do not choose for us.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33907802]Nobody is denying that thoughts, feelings, emotions exist; the point that Johnny and Kakisto are trying to get across is that these are all products of chemical reactions within the organ that is the brain. What reactions occur is determined by both the structure of the brain and the reactions that came before[/QUOTE]
They did anyway, at least one of them. What I'm saying by comparing an experience to al the physical processes that cause it is what I was saying all along: when you analyse something from a third-person point of view you obtain totally different results than when you do it form a first-person point of view.
For me, free will presents itself in the subjective experience and it's a subjective reality. As a subject, each time I make a decision I am confronted with several things I could do, but I do just one of them. Evidently I chose between them.
Is there something that is determining what I chose? Doesn't matter. There is always something.
THERE we go. That's exactly right; when we make a choice, it is our mind that makes the choice. We are the ones making it, even though from a physical/universal point of view, every step of the process is predictable.
So does "free will" exist? Technically yes, but since that freedom is completely predetermined and unchangeable, it doesn't really matter in any practical sense.
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33914135]THERE we go. That's exactly right; when we make a choice, it is our mind that makes the choice. We are the ones making it, even though from a physical/universal point of view, every step of the process is predictable.
So does "free will" exist? Technically yes, but since that freedom is completely predetermined and unchangeable, it doesn't really matter in any practical sense.[/QUOTE]
so are we all agreed that free will does not really exist, but for all intents and purposes it does?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33914489]so are we all agreed that free will does not really exist, but for all intents and purposes it does?[/QUOTE]
Actually I think we've agreed that it exists but it's not what most people think it is.
[QUOTE=matsta;33915145]Actually I think we've agreed that it exists but it's not what most people think it is.[/QUOTE]
so what is your definition of free will?
I would say that free will exists as long as your definition of "free" is not "able to modify the outcome." We are free to chose, but the decision we will ultimately come to is predetermined.
I think I partially agree with that definition. Free will is nothing more than the freedom to act according to our will, as I before said. It is present every time we make a choice (every time we contemplate two or more possibilities and choose between them) just because it is a choice.
That being said, I really don't think the analysis of how is the future phenomena is determined by previous conditions in our universe has anything to do with a subject having or not having free will by that definition. Of course you can say that there's fate or that the universe is completely deterministic (things which I do not agree with anyway, but let's discuss them later), but will you say that the atoms in our brains choose for us? Does it even matter if 'god' knows what we're going to choose? Does that mean that we didn't chose? If you said 'yes' to the last question you must define choosing differently than I do and you must define them before replying.
See the problem with your argument is you are portraying the brain as a separate object.
You thought about and drank water instead of orange juice. Was that free will? Yes. You made a conscious decision on two different things which you had equal access to.
The argument that your brain had this will and therefore it is not really yours is retarded. Your brain is you.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
@ OP
That's not the OP's point at all.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33916865]That's not the OP's point at all.[/QUOTE]
Eh, it all comes down to your definition of free will, whether determinism is true, and many other factors.
In my opinion, free will is defined as the choice between items where both are subject to the same constraints. Whatever biochemical process is going on in your brain is part of who you are, whether you have control over it or not.
So whether you chose that water bottle in my previous question because of some deterministic process, or some biochemical happening, that is still all going on inside your brain, being a part of who you are. Thus giving you free will.
Free will is tough to debate really. Heck anything in the debate forum is really a matter of opinion and definition, and most topics are things that people have debated and are still debating.
Actually, I thought about other definitions of 'free will' in which you decision is 'totally free' and I believe that they wouldn't work even if our universe isn't deterministic. The logic goes like this.
Decisions are either determined by our thoughts/beliefs/moral code and circumstance or they are random.
If they are determined by our thoughts, beliefs, moral code and circumstance then that ARE determined.
If they are random then they are not determined by us, so WE don't make 'the choosing'.
[QUOTE=Heroms;33916908]Eh, it all comes down to your definition of free will, whether determinism is true, and many other factors.
In my opinion, free will is defined as the choice between items where both are subject to the same constraints. Whatever biochemical process is going on in your brain is part of who you are, whether you have control over it or not.
So whether you chose that water bottle in my previous question because of some deterministic process, or some biochemical happening, that is still all going on inside your brain, being a part of who you are. Thus giving you free will.
Free will is tough to debate really. Heck anything in the debate forum is really a matter of opinion and definition, and most topics are things that people have debated and are still debating.[/QUOTE]
The OP was arguing that we don't really have free will, because a biochemical reaction really chooses it. So by his definition chemical reactions are NOT free will.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=matsta;33916752]I think I partially agree with that definition. Free will is nothing more than the freedom to act according to our will, as I before said. It is present every time we make a choice (every time we contemplate two or more possibilities and choose between them) just because it is a choice.
That being said, I really don't think the analysis of how is the future phenomena is determined by previous conditions in our universe has anything to do with a subject having or not having free will by that definition. Of course you can say that there's fate or that the universe is completely deterministic (things which I do not agree with anyway, but let's discuss them later), but will you say that the atoms in our brains choose for us? Does it even matter if 'god' knows what we're going to choose? Does that mean that we didn't chose? If you said 'yes' to the last question you must define choosing differently than I do and you must define them before replying.[/QUOTE]
I define choosing as actually making a choice, not having your choice determined by some god or chemical reaction. And since our choices are made by a chemical reaction, we have no free will. Whenever we have to make a choice, the answer is already determined.
What the fuck. I can choose to sit over here in this chair, or i can sit over there in that chair. I define that as free will. I make the choice, not some biochemical reactions. I am the consciousness, as the whole. People are over-complicating this..
[QUOTE=Stagan;33920036]What the fuck. I can choose to sit over here in this chair, or i can sit over there in that chair. I define that as free will. I make the choice, not some biochemical reactions. I am the consciousness, as the whole. People are over-complicating this..[/QUOTE]
biochemical reactions cause your choices. and over-complicate? This is a debate. If you think we are getting to sciencey, then to bad for you.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33920216]biochemical reactions cause your choices. and over-complicate? This is a debate. If you think we are getting to sciencey, then to bad for you.[/QUOTE]
They might cause my choices, but they dont decide them. As in, they might initiate the dilemma of where I want to sit, but it is I that resolves it. Answers arent predetermined, i guarantee you could take two identical twins, of identical physiology, and they would make different choices under the same circumstances.
Of course twins would to something different. unless their lives were completely identical in every way, they would make different choices. And don't you see? You are a biochemical reaction. Your choices are decided by chemical reactions in the brain. Your thoughts are results of chemical reactions. There is no choice, only an illusion.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33920473]Of course twins would to something different. unless their lives were completely identical in every way, they would make different choices. And don't you see? You are a biochemical reaction. Your choices are decided by chemical reactions in the brain. Your thoughts are results of chemical reactions. There is no choice, only an illusion.[/QUOTE]
Well, since i am a biochemical reaction, and the biochemical reaction makes the choice, it is technically me making the choice. Choices are decided by things happening in my brain. Mine, me. The thoughts there completely unique to anybody else's. Therefore, i would class choice as a reality, simply because of it's individuality. Perhaps in animals of lesser cognitive function, choice is an illusion, but the human brain, in all it's complexity must handle it differently.
When I say you are a biochemical reaction, I say that because your personality, your thoughts, your ideas are all part of the illusion created by the brain, just like you choices. and choice in animals is the same as in humans. the only difference is in how complex the reaction is.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33920782]When I say you are a biochemical reaction, I say that because your personality, your thoughts, your ideas are all part of the illusion created by the brain, just like you choices. and choice in animals is the same as in humans. the only difference is in how complex the reaction is.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty solid argument, but i just find it hard to comprehend that all which humans have achieved over time is the result of a grand illusion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
