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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
How?
Not unless something allows him to. Big difference. Consciousness allows him to.
Sapo: Self-awareness ≠ [Self] Consciousness
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.
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.
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?