[QUOTE=Benstokes;33916376]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.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what free will is. An illusion of being able to chose, the choice is there but the choice you make is predetermined. You formulated it perfectly.
[QUOTE=Stagan;33920915]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.[/QUOTE]
It's not hard at all.
We discover things and we experiment with them with other things, and as such we learn how they work and then we use that knowledge on other things and learn how they work and before you know it (many many thousand years) we are able to split atoms.
[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.[/QUOTE]
Lol no sorry
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stagan;33920676]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.[/QUOTE]
People make this argument all the time and I have to ask what sense it makes to call the brain's evaluation of choices by itself "free will." It's just confusing the issue, and there's no point to it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33921440]People make this argument all the time and I have to ask what sense it makes to call the brain's evaluation of choices by itself "free will." It's just confusing the issue, and there's no point to it.[/QUOTE]
What I react to the most is how people distinguish ourselves from animals. I just never get it, why are we so different from animals? Why are we so much more special than animals?
Superiority complex, goddamn you. It's almost the same difference as a hobo and a billionaire.
Yeah, we're not different than animals at all except in the complexity of our brains. It doesn't change anything in terms of us having any actual choice.
[QUOTE=Stagan;33920676][B]Well, since i am a biochemical reaction[/B], 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.[/QUOTE]
This argument massively depends on this. If you take the physicalist account of the mind to be correct, that's one aspect of it, if you don't then you are lead to another conclusion.
I personally disagree with this, I don't believe that the brain is all that makes the mind/us, thus the free will debate is somewhat different for me.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;33921618]I personally disagree with this, I don't believe that the brain is all that makes the mind/us, thus the free will debate is somewhat different for me.[/QUOTE]
Then the question is, what makes us?
Um, since the brain is essentially a neural network of electricity, couldn't we say that (since electrons are quantum particles) that their randomness enables free thought.
[QUOTE=dgg;33922006]Then the question is, what makes us?[/QUOTE]
Well then, that's the right question.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;33922605]Um, since the brain is essentially a neural network of electricity, couldn't we say that (since electrons are quantum particles) that their randomness enables free thought.[/QUOTE]
Is a random will a free will?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;33922780]Well then, that's the right question.[/QUOTE]
...
So you're making a claim that there is more than the brain that makes us but you have not a single theory or explanation for it?
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Occlusion;33922605]Um, since the brain is essentially a neural network of electricity, couldn't we say that (since electrons are quantum particles) that their randomness enables free thought.[/QUOTE]
Why do you believe quantum particles are random?
Just because we haven't figured out how they actually work yet doesn't make them random, they are just currently labeled as such since they SEEM random.
[QUOTE=dgg;33923184]...
So you're making a claim that there is more than the brain that makes us but you have not a single theory or explanation for it?
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
Why do you believe quantum particles are random?
Just because we haven't figured out how they actually work yet doesn't make them random, they are just currently labeled as such since they SEEM random.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if I'm not willing to throw out some badly thought out explanation for something I don't understand properly. I never claimed I had a solution.
All I'm saying is, I do not believe that physicalist accounts for the mind work.
IF the mind is purely physical (which I personally believe that it is, since there is no evidence to the contrary and no elements of the mind that have not been explained by physical sciences as of yet) then our brain is run purely by physical reactions, and by extension our decisions must be predetermined. That said, if you consider that pile of neurons and reactions to be "us," which I do, then we still have free will in the sense that it is "us" making the decisions. Whether or not that qualifies as free will depends on your definition of the word free.
[QUOTE=dgg;33923184]...
So you're making a claim that there is more than the brain that makes us but you have not a single theory or explanation for it?
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
Why do you believe quantum particles are random?
Just because we haven't figured out how they actually work yet doesn't make them random, they are just currently labeled as such since they SEEM random.[/QUOTE]
They might as well be random, as one particle cannot be in exactly the same energy state as any other in the universe, there are too many options for them to be predictable.
Another point I am going to bring to the debate is that you are not the same person you where a year ago, any matter that has stayed behind only stayed due to chance and that a lot of your brain is dedicated to keeping this illusion of cohesion between events. Just thinking about all the information and data our brain keeps from being processed by our conciseness and changed just to keep up these necessarily illusions is immense, Did you know you have a massive blind spot on your eye, where your optic never touches the back of your eye, and you never notice it. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt, and I suppose that's another defense against us breaking down completely.
This is the kind of discussion that makes people feel insignificant and dull.
The way to defeat it is by talking about the mind. Science is baffled and in my opinion, forever will be.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33926319]This is the kind of discussion that makes people feel insignificant and dull.
The way to defeat it is by talking about the mind. Science is baffled and in my opinion, forever will be.[/QUOTE]
Science isn't baffled by the mind, It's just scientists have to use their brain to look at how their brain works, and that's difficult.
That's why physiology is a soft science, you are studying something that your brain is stopping you from studying.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33926446]Science isn't baffled by the mind, It's just scientists have to use their brain to look at how their brain works, and that's difficult.
That's why physiology is a soft science, you are studying something that your brain is stopping you from studying.[/QUOTE]
The fact that we can't extract the mind, makes it impossible for anyone to explain it.
Psychology is indeed a soft science, interesting but not enough to give me the answers I need.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33926759]The fact that we can't extract the mind, makes it impossible for anyone to explain it.
Psychology is indeed a soft science, interesting but not enough to give me the answers I need.[/QUOTE]
We can't go out and touch the sun either, that doesn't mean we can't explain it; we can observe the effect it has and extrapolate from similar processes that are easier to observe directly. The human mind may be hard to study, but it certainly isn't impossible. We're doing quite well already, and I'm sure we'll get even better at it in the future.
I don't think we have free will. I believe in determinism which basically states that, like the rest of the universe, our minds are subject to cause and effect. Thusly we do not decide, our minds simply give us the illusion that we have will as an evolutionary aid for survival. Its really extraordinary, some tests have been done that show that subconsciously the mind can make a choice as early as 7 seconds before we're even aware we've made a choice consciously.
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33926939]We can't go out and touch the sun either, that doesn't mean we can't explain it; we can observe the effect it has and extrapolate from similar processes that are easier to observe directly. The human mind may be hard to study, but it certainly isn't impossible. We're doing quite well already, and I'm sure we'll get even better at it in the future.[/QUOTE]
Yes we can. Photons from the sun are hitting us, therefore we can touch a part of the sun.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
and back to the mind, yes we can superficially judge people's actions. But only we ourselves can experience the glory.
[editline]28th December 2011[/editline]
in our own way.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33919705]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.[/QUOTE]
1. Are you actually saying that chemical reactions make choices?
2. If not, then does the concepts of choice exists for you? Define choice and the necessary conditions in which a choice can be made.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Block;33922949]Is a random will a free will?[/QUOTE]
Actually, I use this argument against the traditional definition of free will. Somehow most people believe that free will is choosing something disregarding any influence that determines what we chose. AS I said before that wouldn't even work as a concept:
If we choose we do it based on our beliefs and the circumstances or we do it randomly.
If we do the first, then our choice is determined by them.
If we do the second then 'we' don't choose.
Freewill is to be defined only by choosing in a determined circumstance according to our beliefs. And that DOES happen.
[QUOTE=Benstokes;33926939]We can't go out and touch the sun either, that doesn't mean we can't explain it; we can observe the effect it has and extrapolate from similar processes that are easier to observe directly. The human mind may be hard to study, but it certainly isn't impossible. [B]We're doing quite well already, and I'm sure we'll get even better at it in the future[/B].[/QUOTE]
This is having blind faith, something most people would disagree with.
Also, as far as explaining consciousness, I'm not so sure we're doing 'quite well'
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;33928712]This is having blind faith, something most people would disagree with.
Also, as far as explaining consciousness, I'm not so sure we're doing 'quite well'[/QUOTE]
That statement is not based upon faith, and it is certainly not blind. The more questions science answers, the more new questions we discover. That has been the case since we started thinking critically about our surroundings. Just because the nature of consciousness is complicated and difficult to examine does not mean that we will never make any progress, that it is unexplainable. In a handful of decades we have made huge leaps in the fields of psychology, neurology, and biochemistry which have all given us a better picture of how the human mind functions. This isn't some great mystery; it is simply one of the more recent frontiers of science, and all evidence and observation of past trends points to us overcoming this one just like all of the others we have conquered. It is not, as far as we know, magical, and therefore our knowledge of it can be improved upon.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;33928712]This is having blind faith, something most people would disagree with.
Also, as far as explaining consciousness, I'm not so sure we're doing 'quite well'[/QUOTE]
Working under a theoretical assumption (e.g. consciousness has wholly physical causes) based on previous data (nothing supernatural has been shown to exist) which may not be provable yet because the study of related phenomena is still in its infancy, but continuing to use it because it has not been shown to be wrong, is not blind faith. It is how science works.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33928891]Working under a theoretical assumption (e.g. consciousness has wholly physical causes) based on previous data (nothing supernatural has been shown to exist) which may not be provable yet because the study of related phenomena is still in its infancy, but continuing to use it because it has not been shown to be wrong, is not blind faith. It is how science works.[/QUOTE]
THANK you. That's exactly right.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;33924013]I'm sorry if I'm not willing to throw out some badly thought out explanation for something I don't understand properly. I never claimed I had a solution.
All I'm saying is, I do not believe that physicalist accounts for the mind work.[/QUOTE]
I'm still asking what you think actually makes the mind work.
I think it's silly to claim that people have blind faith and such and then you seem to do the exact same. Believeing that the brain is affected by something else as well but having no theories for it (or at least not sharing them).
"No, the mind must be affected by something else, but I have absolutely no idea what, whatsoever and I will not even attempt to understand what that other thing is whatsoever". That's what I'm hearing right now.
Not to completely derail the current conversation and the progression thereof (I merely mean to add on to it since it seems rather stagnated currently), but think about this:
If, in fact, the human consciousness (or illusion of such) and it's choice-making processes are completely controlled by physically observable and alterable chemical reactions, would it then be possible to modify these chemical reactions in such a way as to modify one's choices?
...
In typing the above, I think I just answered my own question. Wouldn't psychoactive drugs be a great example of the modification of the illusion of free choice? Free choice is based on a set of chemical processes, and by introducing a new process or modifying an existing one, one could observe a change in choice-making.
...
I need to sleep. I always get this way when I'm sleep deprived. It's horrible for my faith, as I start questioning myself and my own choices. Ouch. My head.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33901132]so what are they? and if they are derived from physical phenomena, why doesn't physics apply to them? I am made of atoms, and as such anything that affects atoms affect me. why is it not the same for minds?
[editline]25th December 2011[/editline]
Exactly. Unless there is such thing as a soul, there is no free will.[/QUOTE]
A soul and a conscious are interchangeable, and there is definitely such thing as a conscious.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;33932559]Not to completely derail the current conversation and the progression thereof (I merely mean to add on to it since it seems rather stagnated currently), but think about this:
If, in fact, the human consciousness (or illusion of such) and it's choice-making processes are completely controlled by physically observable and alterable chemical reactions, would it then be possible to modify these chemical reactions in such a way as to modify one's choices?
...
In typing the above, I think I just answered my own question. Wouldn't psychoactive drugs be a great example of the modification of the illusion of free choice? Free choice is based on a set of chemical processes, and by introducing a new process or modifying an existing one, one could observe a change in choice-making.
...
I need to sleep. I always get this way when I'm sleep deprived. It's horrible for my faith, as I start questioning myself and my own choices. Ouch. My head.[/QUOTE]
Simply changing the way it works wouldn't make it independent though, it would just make it different.
Instead of being predetermined to say yes in a situation you are predetermined to say no.
And the fact that your brain was going to be changed with psychoactive drugs was predertimened as well, so nothing actually changed.
Our brain and the biochemistry created the things we choose from? Like which chair to sit on, or which educational route to go for, or whatever.
Same goes for your normal animals like dog, they sometimes choose to do dumb or funny things. It's their brain that allows them to do stuff ("making choices") and humans are exactly the same, except there are a Hell of a lot more choices for us to choose from.
So free will or no free will, our brains are something quite miraculous. It's the key to all of this, even this debate and the choice of words we use to debate.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33936557]Our brain and the biochemistry created the things we choose from? Like which chair to sit on, or which educational route to go for, or whatever.
Same goes for your normal animals like dog, they sometimes choose to do dumb or funny things. It's their brain that allows them to do stuff ("making choices") and humans are exactly the same, except there are a Hell of a lot more choices for us to choose from.
So free will or no free will, our brains are something quite miraculous. It's the key to all of this, even this debate and the choice of words we use to debate.[/QUOTE]
True, except I'd use the word "amazing" or "unlikely" rather than miraculous, to keep the tiller from pointing due religious debate.
That said, how is this relevant to the discussion?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
