[QUOTE=AHunter3]
My “will” is determined by me in relationship to my context. The context can’t do it without me.
[/quote]
This still makes no logical sense. It would take a will to determine a will. You can act according to want but the “wanting” in itself cannot be chosen.
It can’t exist. You might as well ask what a square circle would look like. Will cannot be self-determining.
[QUOTE=mlees]
Psst.. dude. (Dude-ette?) I’m on your side. I’m arguing in favor of free will.
[/quote]
Sigh. Did you read my first post in this thread? I don’t think there is any such coherent concept as free will. It doesn’t mean anything to say that someone has it.
I don’t know whether or not this is true, but I don’t see any particular reason why it couldn’t be true. Does the idea really bother you so much? Why?
Maybe we are. But also, at the same time, we are people who feel very strongly that this or that choice is important and of value. The two are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think.
I don’t understand. I responded TO this analogy. I didn’t disagree with your characterization of it, just your interpretation that it meant anything.
First of all, no. People are describing a state of affairs in the hypothetical to explain how choices are determined, not stating that such thing will ever be possible in practice. Second of all, being able to figure out choices still isn’t the same thing as being able to determine outcomes.
If we knew what our choices would be, we might well change our choices in response. So?
What do any of these objections have to do with supporting the idea of free will as a meaningful concept?
I still don’t get it. People are insisting that people who don’t think that free will can be defined or explained are being asked to define or explain it? What?
If you think there is such a thing as free will, YOU define what it is and explain how it affects or plays into anything having to do with how something or someone makes choices.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I believe in effective Free Will because I believe a lot of the deterministic processes happen in the mental subconscious, in a “Black Box of the Brain” that has only inputs and outputs, but is otherwise inaccessible to our conscious thought. Being thus opaque to us, yet still an internal process, while to a hypothetical outside omnipotent observer, the process is transparent, to us, as conscious beings, there’s a part of our reasoning that we can’t unpack. It’s definitely *not *random, but isn’t open to our scrutiny. Thus providing us (as external actors) with the illusion of free will. We can never break our own thoughts down to the purely deterministic because we are all two people, interacting. I believe that interaction leads to the emergent behaviour that is your public persona, and that public persona can behave in unpredictable ways. But it’s a non-random unpredictability.
Hell, I’m not even making sense to me here.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you made perfect sense. Still, that Black Box, if you are still assuming it to be a part of your nervous system, is still more neurons doing what neurons do by virtue of atoms doind what atoms do. It is still a natural process that follows natural laws. It is true that other people’s “black boxes” can’t predict what yours will do (maybe even yours can’t) but that is just a reflection of the shortcomings of out “black boxes”. It is unpredictable because we are bad at predicting, not because it is intrinsically unpredictable
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
My will may not, in some metaphysical sense, be free; but that does not mean my will does not exist.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think there is any doubt about the existence of our wills. They are all here talking about wills, after all. But if they are not Free, then they are not Free Will. These wills are just illusions. We are no different from dogs, apples and rocks. Just chemical reactors. Luckily, our reactors don’t seem to get too riled up about it and happily chug along. We are not even free enough to terminate our reaction.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’ll let you take that up with Dio, who said in post 6, “You will simply act according to programming.” I don’t care what we call it, really.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t need to agree with Dio in every aspect but I believe he refers to the programming of the laws of nature. It is not that we specifically are purposefully programmed.
[QUOTE=Skammer]
If any moral “choice” is the result of causes and not free will - how can the can the choice be labelled, in any way, moral? If one’s choices are pre-determined, it seems meaningless to assign a moral value to them. They’re just the natural result of my body interacting with the environment I’m in. We usually think of moral choices in terms of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (or amoral) – but if free will is an illusion, aren’t all of our ‘choices’ essentially amoral?
I’m glad you started this thread because these questions have been on my mind lately.
[/QUOTE]
Most definitely, if there is no free will, there is no morality, of course. Except as in the confines of our perception, that is. Our choices are as amoral as a stone “choosing” to break the window that we threw it to.
To those who feel we have free will…
Do you think that free will happens via the body, say, in the brain? With the right tools, could we theoretically observe or measure all the neurons, chemicals or what-have-you involved in an action of free will?
Or, is free will a completely non-corporeal thing such as a spirit or an unknown, unmeasurable energy?
[QUOTE=mlees]
Why did we humans develope the self awareness to the point of desiring to debate the nature of ourselves? I’m not sure that was an accident… what purpose in Darwinian logic does me fretting over the nature of myself (or other abtract concepts, like God) serve?
Dog’s don’t, and they are a succesfull species. (At least, I don’t think they do. They seem to typify the “bag of chemical” lifestyle so embrassed by some here. Give 'em a good belly rub, and they are set!)
Even more so for insects and bacteria.
Do you feel that a person who creates a great symphony, or painting, or mathmatical equation is just marking time until their chemical bonds fail? Life must seem pointless, then.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you need a reason why for our self awareness? If we can chalk up life itself (and the rest of its evolution) to an accident, why not the last mile?
We are just like dogs, it is just that our belly rubbings are more complex.
And life certainly doesn’t need to have a point. What was the point of life before humans evolved? Before life evolved?
[QUOTE=mlees]
Psst.. dude. (Dude-ette?) I’m on your side. I’m arguing in favor of free will. There are those arguing that if you knew everything about me, and everthing about the situation I am in, (including how the other folks are choosing to present me with my circumstances), then you can predict with 100% certainty that I will dive in front of the bullet.
That degree of certainty can be used to make decisions to shape the future. But again, with that degree of knowledge, you know (100% accuracy) what will come of it. Hence, they say there is no free will, we are just chemicals reacting to our enviornment.
To know with 100% certainty what our actions will be is kind of like knowing the game beforehand. Was my analogy that bad?
“Pretty certain” is not 100% certain, which has been stated as possible by others. They claim that by knowing everthing that will happen to you, you can predict what will be your “choice” with 100% certainty.
Then, with that knowledge, you can predict what comes next (and what comes next for the others around you), and so on. Life becomes a scripted play.
Sigh. I must confess. I appear to be unable to communicate effectively. I guess I will have to bow out now. sad panda face
[/QUOTE]
It has been said before but just for reinforcement. “We” cannot predict what anyone else will do. We are terribly bad predictors. And maybe things are not even predictable if you allow for truly random events (topic of one more discussion). Still, that doesn’t mean that we are free from the chain of cause-effect. Our “decider” module is still a natural process that follows the laws of nature.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What’s “free” about it?
[/QUOTE]
Not predetermined.
Free will = [self] Consciousness.
A dog can’t choose not to eat any more than it can choose not to breathe. A human can.
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
To those who feel we have free will…
…
[/QUOTE]
Don’t worry. Either way I won’t be asking you to provide a cite or proof. I’m just curious what people think free will is. Perhaps, if you hadn’t considered the question before, your answer will help you to see free will doesn’t exist.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Maybe. But I’m really thinking more basic than that: like the fish in water, why should the subject of believing or not believing in free will even come up? Why shouldn’t we just reach computationally favorable ‘decisions’ by whatever algorithm is programmed into us, and may the most successful algorithm reproduce more extensively?
[/QUOTE]
Ah: Zombie Planet. (c.f. David Chalmers)
Can we conceive of a world/universe just like ours, but where none of the inhabitants have conscious experience?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not predetermined.
Free will = [self] Consciousness.
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. You can be conscious without having free will.
Not unless he wants to, and something has to cause him to want to.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not predetermined.
Free will = [self] Consciousness.
A dog can’t choose not to eat any more than it can choose not to breathe. A human can.
[/QUOTE]
Chimps and dolphins are self-aware (and, apparently, parakeets; the jury is still out on elephants). They can recognize themselves in the mirror. Do they have free will?
Dogs can and sometimes do choose not to eat and die as a consequence. It happens to abandoned dogs. I saw it first hand when we decided to adopt a 9-year old Pomerania from a very ill previous owner. And a human cannot choose not to breathe. Give it a try. You can stop it for a while but in the end, you breathe.
Still our ability to choose to stop eating or any other choice, is no proof of Free Will. What we are proposing is that all those decisions or choices are just the product of our neurological processes.
A dog is free to choose between chasing the cat or obeying your command. Birds choose between fleeing the cat or staying put. All animals make some level of decisions as they are aware of their environments and their needs. As we look at more complex animals, we see more complex decisions being made. Humans are just making very complex decisions that go beyond Fight or Flight.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not predetermined.
Free will = [self] Consciousness.
A dog can’t choose not to eat any more than it can choose not to breathe. A human can.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. A dog can choose not to eat if it has the right influences… say, a horrible mouth ulcer that hurts when it eats, or something. The only difference between a dog and a person is that a person’s influences can be much broader, and the memory storage for influences is larger and more detailed.
Besides, predetermination doesn’t make a choice not free (other things do, but not if it was predetermined or not). Why would it?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No it doesn’t. You can be conscious without having free will.
[/quote]
How?
Not unless something allows him to. Big difference. Consciousness allows him to.
Sapo: Self-awareness ≠ [Self] Consciousness
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I disagree. A dog can choose not to eat if it has the right influences… say, a horrible mouth ulcer that hurts when it eats, or something.
[/QUOTE]
That’s like saying a dog chooses not to eat if he’s chained to pole and there is no food in reach. That isn’t a choice. The ulcer makes it physicall impossible for him to eat.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
That’s like saying a dog chooses not to eat if he’s chained to pole and there is no food in reach. That isn’t a choice. The ulcer makes it physicall impossible for him to eat.
[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn’t. I’m not saying the dog physically can’t eat. It could. It would just in in incredible pain from doing so. And because it isn’t able to make the connection that food = life, and that life is more important than horrible pain, it won’t eat (until the hunger pangs become stronger than the pain, of course).
On the other hand, I am claiming the dog can’t actually make a free choice to eat. But there’s a difference between not being able to choose to and not being physically able to.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
How?
[/quote]
Like this. Like we’re doing right now. In fact, it can’t be any other way.
[quote[Not unless something allows him to. Big difference. Consciousness allows him to.[/quote]
Allows him to do what? I think you’re confusing the ability to act on will with the ability to determine the will itself. What determines the will? Please understand, I’m not asking what determines the choice (choice being merely the effect of the will), I’m asking what determines the will to make a choice. What makes you WANT something?