Debate 7 Discussion: On the existence of free will: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 7 Discussion: On the existence of free will » Debate 7 Discussion: On the existence of free will

Debate 7 Discussion: On the existence of free will

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Debate 7 Discussion: On the existence of free will

Nobody
Rien. Existe.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 26, 2003
Location: Lost In My Own Mind :\

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 190

Posted 04/22/05 - 08:17 AM:	#21
Paul wrote: It seems to be your contention that brains are hunks of meat that evolved by accident and serve no purpose at all, and that "rationality" and "choice" are magic words sent down by god by that have never been used correctly in the history of mankind. I do not mean to say that are brains are useless, but that they give us the illusion of free will through their complexity.Just because a stimulus like a punch in the face or the asking of a question given to it are processed and examined by the brain for a proper response does not mean that we are consciously controlling the process. A computer takes input, interprets it, uses it in some program etc, and gives output based on the input. Although our brains are more complex than computers the function is pretty similar. Edited by Nobody on 04/22/05 - 08:31 AM
-"Far too many live, and far too long hang they on their branches. Would that a storm came and shook all this rottenness and worm-eatenness from the tree!" -Nietzsche I was just thinking … that here we sit, all of us, eating and drinking to preserve our precious existence and really there is nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing. -Sartre, "Nausea"

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12175

Posted 04/24/05 - 10:40 PM:	#22
Yet as Socratein already showed, you and he don't even know what you're talking about when you say "free will". It is impossible to have an illusion of something if the thing is not a coherent idea. I agree with Socratein's basic premise that you're babbling nonsense when you talk about free will -- I merely make the distinction that plenty of other people are using the word rationally and it is of little concern to them that your conception of it is nonsensical (that being your problem and yours alone). Nobody wrote: Just because a stimulus like a punch in the face or the asking of a question given to it are processed and examined by the brain for a proper response does not mean that we are consciously controlling the process. I get the feeling you're nonsencializing consciousness as well -- again, purely your own problem if you choose to lobotomize yourself with an intentionally faulty dictionary in the name of saving a misguided ill-founded intuition. It is simple to tell if someone is consciouslly controling a process by doing a brain scan of their action. A punch in the face probably would not stimulate the region that controls rationality, but would simply cause a reaction. A question, on the other hand, is much more likely to trigger rational consideration. The point is that the technology already exists to observe these things. (Now if you don't mean to propose that your doubt is rational, and you're merely trying an exercise in global skepticism here, fine... doctors and scientists are all aliens from Alpha Centauri here to give false information about the workings of the brain.) A computer takes input, interprets it, uses it in some program etc, and gives output based on the input. And in theory, certainly a program could be created which would have the capability of free will. On the other hand I'm fairly certain that no such program will ever be created since it's far beyond what human intelligence, not to mention technology, seems capable of devising. It would require a vastly different sort of hardware to be developed, and then a vastly different coding technique. Realistically, nothing that complex will ever be accomplished by humans. Of course, computers are favorite examples of people not for anything to do with their actual function -- which is vastly different from a brain -- but for the bait and switch fatalism it allows. You mention computers because that inevitably causes people to think about how freely acting humans choose to control computers and make them produce the output, so that computers are fated and the mind quickly jumps to imaginging humans being fated by the hand of god. (You do this even though, if you were right, it would follow from the lack of free will you assert that there is actually no important difference between how a person programs a computer and how the wind rearranges the sand.) A rock, too, takes input from the environment and processes it as a stress to create output. But the rock does not go through the process known as rationality -- and neither does a computer, despite how we tend to imagine it being the same thing in our desire to simplify the brain and our natural tendency to superimpose human processes on a computer because the output is human-centric (some posters were ready to consider ModBot sentient) -- so no one sane says the rock is making choices. And it's fair to say that the structure and interactive mechanisms of a computer resemble that of a rock almost as closely as that of a brain. Edited by Paul on 04/24/05 - 10:56 PM

Freigeist
i emit love rays

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2004

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 233

Posted 05/22/05 - 10:30 PM:	#23
The debate proved to me just how much philosophy is word games.
For fifteen long centuries we had to toil and suffer owing to that "freedom": but now we have prevailed and our work is done, and well and strongly it is done. Thy people feel fully sure and satisfied of their freedom; and have themselves and of their own free will delivered that freedom unto our hands by placing it submissively at our feet. - F.D.

dagan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2004

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/07/05 - 06:50 AM:	#24
A good way to prove that Free will exist is to provide an example that nobody can refute: "The choice to think or not to think is free." Now, I would love to read Socrastein's refutation of this easy example as the contradictions of his flawed reasoning will show up very soon.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/12/05 - 07:14 PM:	#25
How do you choose not to think? I've never been able to do so. Am I the only human being without a self-activating hibernation mode or something? And how could you choose to think? If you're choosing to think, then can it be assumed that you're not thinking before you choose to think? Otherwise you're already thinking and it wouldn't make much sense to say you choose to do something that you're already doing without any say. So if we can be not thinking, then how can we choose to think? What is choosing to think, if we're not thinking? Sorry, but your irrefutable example just makes no sense to me whatsoever. And "The choise to think or not think is not free", while just as confusing, doesn't seem to be inherently contradictory. Unless you're defining choice as free of course.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

dagan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2004

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/13/05 - 08:07 AM:	#26
Socrastein wrote: How do you choose not to think? I've never been able to do so. Am I the only human being without a self-activating hibernation mode or something? And how could you choose to think? If you're choosing to think, then can it be assumed that you're not thinking before you choose to think? Otherwise you're already thinking and it wouldn't make much sense to say you choose to do something that you're already doing without any say. So if we can be not thinking, then how can we choose to think? What is choosing to think, if we're not thinking? Sorry, but your irrefutable example just makes no sense to me whatsoever. And "The choise to think or not think is not free", while just as confusing, doesn't seem to be inherently contradictory. Unless you're defining choice as free of course. Well... what I meant by "think or not think" is "to focus or not to focus" I will explain you how I choose to focus: Whenever I want, I can choose to think, focus (make a mental effort) about anything I judge serious like when I am at work, or like right now about a philosophical issue... This choice belongs to me, nobody forces me to do it... Some other time, I choose not to think, just day-dreaming, a wave of random ideas will submerge me and I will let myself float by them, thinking nothing in particular, just relaxing... I am sure you can do it, make a little effort :-) in general, it is the other way around (to think) that is the most difficult... If I am choosing not to think, then I don't focus anymore and let it go to anything... Here is your contradiction with the following fact of reality: "you are free to focus or not to focus", this choice is yours, nobody or nothing can do it for you. My questions to you now: If you are not free to choose to focus or not to focus, then who or what decides for you? Then, if you don't know who or what decides for you (I will be surprised if you find someone or something) then what the hell do you think we are not free to choose...? Either we focus or not (law of non-contradiction), one or the other, and this choice is up to everyone...

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/13/05 - 02:08 PM:	#27
So your argument is, we are free to choose? Your argument is your conclusion dagan. You're supposed to be trying to argue why we're free to choose, but rather you're just concluding without any support, and challenging me to disprove your assumption. What "makes" us focus or not focus at any moment? Brain chemistry and the laws under which our brain operates. We can't choose how our brain operates, if we could then we couldn't choose how those choices operate, and you can either infinitely regress or you can acknowledge that sooner or later our actions are beyond our control. When I play Starcraft against the computer, the AI can either expand early or go for a rush. What makes it choose one or the other? The laws under which that AI operates.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

dagan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2004

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/14/05 - 05:05 AM:	#28
Socrastein wrote: ... What "makes" us focus or not focus at any moment? Brain chemistry and the laws under which our brain operates. We can't choose how our brain operates, if we could then we couldn't choose how those choices operate, and you can either infinitely regress or you can acknowledge that sooner or later our actions are beyond our control. ... Who is causing the brain chemistry? In cases, you are right, it results from our senses to an event. In other cases, YOU trigger (unconsciently, of course) those chemistries when YOU decide to focus about something out of the blur: the cause of those chemistries is YOU. I know now where you are making a mistake, you are mixing 2 important separate things. Your premise is: "we are not free because there are CAUSES to everything". The word "freedom" does not mean "freedom from causality or materialism", it means "freedom from compulsion or restraint". Thus, if will exists, it can exert its influences through causal relations. Causality provides constraints, not unfreedom. Gravity limits the conditions under which a person can fly, but it does not prevent flying. The causal sequences by which nerve stimulation results in muscular action give the will the freedom to manifest itself in the world. The important premise to keep in mind is: "freedom from compulsion or restraint" not "freedom from causality"...

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 07/14/05 - 06:25 AM:	#29
Who is causing the brain chemistry? In cases, you are right, it results from our senses to an event. In other cases, YOU trigger (unconsciently, of course) those chemistries when YOU decide to focus about something out of the blur: the cause of those chemistries is YOU. -Dagan I like to think I'm a fairly important guy, but I would never consider myself to be the laws of chemistry themselves, that's far too much credit. It is the laws of chemistry that causes my brain chemistry, of course. Not me. Just as the laws that govern electrical current determine the actions of my computer and any AI I may run on it. The important premise to keep in mind is: "freedom from compulsion or restraint" not "freedom from causality"... Compulsion is an irresistable impulse to act. I will ask you two questions. One, do you acknowledge as Paul did in the debate that this discussion only holds meaning under the presumption that we are deterministic beings? Two, would you agree that every choice we make is the result of acting on some sort of impulse. I'm not asking whether or not this impulse is irresistable, I'm simply asking if you accept the idea that impulses are what we act on. I eat food because I have a hunger impulse. Let's use "motivating force or tendency" to define impulse, if you please. Everything we do is the result of impulses, the result of motivating forces or tendencies, is it not? If we could possibly act without any reason, with no impetus, then we would be acting randomly and that is why I must make clear whether or not we are discussing free will in a deterministic universe. If you answer both questions yes, that we are causally determined in our actions and every action we take is the result of an impulse, then you must neccessarily conclude that we are compelled by our impulses. Why? Well because by the very nature of determinism, we can never act against our impulses, we will and must always act in a causally determined way as determined by the strength and nature of our impulses. If I make choice X due to impulse Y, I could never have possibly made choice A due to impulse B in the exact same situation. So if I could never have chosen against the impulse with which I chose, I was obviously compelled by the impetus in question. So yes, IT IS a about freedom from compulsion, and we do NOT have freedom from compulsion. Because we are causally determined beings we are compelled, so it's just as much about freedom from causality as it is about freedom from compulsion, I believe, though I very much may be mistaken, that your distinction is arbitrary and misguided, and you have failed to realize that they are inextricably intertwined, the one neccessitating the other and vice versa.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

dagan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2004

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/14/05 - 09:59 AM:	#30
Socrastein wrote: The important premise to keep in mind is: "freedom from compulsion or restraint" not "freedom from causality"... If you answer both questions yes, that we are causally determined in our actions and every action we take is the result of an impulse, then you must neccessarily conclude that we are compelled by our impulses. Why? Well because by the very nature of determinism, we can never act against our impulses, we will and must always act in a causally determined way as determined by the strength and nature of our impulses. If I make choice X due to impulse Y, I could never have possibly made choice A due to impulse B in the exact same situation. So if I could never have chosen against the impulse with which I chose, I was obviously compelled by the impetus in question. "If I make choice X due to impulse Y, I could never have possibly made choice A due to impulse B in the exact same situation". Why??? It is just not true. I agree that "we are causally determined in our actions". I disagree that "Every action we take is the result of an impulse" when we consider the impulse to be oneself. Note that if the impulse is oneself it will mean that we have free will. example: "an idea just pops up spontaneously in my mind". The motivating force is me... So, for sure I can tell you that I am not free of myself :-)(loop). You will tell me that the brain chemistry caused the idea to pop up in my mind, I can tell you that I caused the brain chemistries when the idea popped up or when I decide to analyse, make a mental effort about the new idea. So, NOT ALL actions are the result of an impulse other than oneself. Can you give me a scientific proof that brain chemistry ALWAYS causes thinking and not the other way around? Sorry but I don't understand your reasoning after that... Let's dig into details... Why we cannot act against our impulses? Can you provide also a specific example that we can work on? I have an impulse to eat some chocolate but somehow I resist and don't eat the chocolate. Was I compelled? I don't think so because I was free to decide. Some day, I will eat the chocolate some others I will not. The choice is mine and is free. You see, there is a distinction between freedom from causality that we cannot escape and freedom from compulsion that we can escape (free will).

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.