|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Free Will
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
In some parts it seems fashionable to challenge the notion of free will.
What are people's opinion of this position?
Short question, big answer. I don't know a lot about it and I'm hoping to become a little more informed on what I generously describe as a curious belief to hold.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would not say it's fashionable really. I think if you support naturalism, then free will becomes very questionable, since there does not appear to be any agent to exert free will. This goes hand in hand with notions of physical determinism.
So I would say that an absence of free will is an inevitable consequence of many versions of naturalism.
However, I chat with quite a lot of people who also say that free will just seems intuitively apparent, so they are in a quandary, if they support naturalism.
I guess for theists, there is less difficulty with free will, but maybe there are still problems, e.g. do I choose my beliefs? I would say not. But yes, it is very complicated.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
All my favorite topics lately! I don't believe in free will. I do believe in limited free will. I believe we always have a choice. But that choice is usually very limited. So for example, I have the choice of embracing Christianity or not, but I really didn't have the choice of choosing Islam. Because I was not raised within a culture of Islam. Sure, now that I know about it, I could choose to embrace it, but it was just not reflected in my upbringing or my culture.
I was raised with a reasonable set of morals and I was not abused or traumatized and I do not suffer from any mental illness, therefore the choice to not commit mass murder is not that difficult of a choice.
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me.
Me too, but one of the things I've learned here on the Ship is that there is an amazing range in what people mean when they use the term.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me.
What baffles me is that you think very many people believe this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
What has baffled me is that a few people have said that that is what they mean by free will when they have said they don't believe it exists. That they seem to think that there might be anyone who believes in that kind of free will is what is baffling to me.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Doctor Johnson; "We know our will is free, and there's an end on't".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
As a Jamesian pragmatist, I find it pretty straightforward: I might manage to believe that you don't have free will. But if I were to decide that I don't have free will, the next question would be, "What should I do about that?" (Or maybe "Where should we have lunch?"*).
In other words, the proposition "There is no free will" is trivial, because it has no implications for action if it is applied to oneself. And a proposition that can only be meaningful about others isn't really defensible, unless you're prepared to claim that you aren't really human like all those other automata.
[*The third stage of civilization, according to Douglas Adams.]
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglocatholic
Apprentice
# 13804
|
Posted
This topic reminds me of the story of two preachers, one Calvanist, the other, Arminian. They decided to preach in each other's church. As they passed on the way, the Calvanist said, 'you my friend, are predestined to preach in my church this morning'. The Arminian preacher said,'ís that right', and turned his horse around and went back the way he came.
--------------------
An Anglican from Sydney but not a Sydney Anglican.
Posts: 34 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
In other words, the proposition "There is no free will" is trivial, because it has no implications for action if it is applied to oneself. And a proposition that can only be meaningful about others isn't really defensible, unless you're prepared to claim that you aren't really human like all those other automata.
Now that is an intriguing approach!
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Of course we have free will - within the constraints of our upbringing, culture, background, physical abilities, circumstances etc etc. Some of these can be 'shaken off' by us and some can't.
It's the idea that God limits that free will which is wrong imo. God lets it all happen - that is clear by simply looking around us.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Sometimes the only choice we have is the attitude in which we face adversity.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Yesterday on BBC Radio 4 'In Our Time', Melvyn Bragg and three experts discussed Epicurus who had an interesting view on free will, which, apparently, links with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I intend to listen to the programme again and to learn more about Epicurus.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It intrigues me that some people say 'of course' we have free will. I'm not sure why it's of course. Still, I suppose they were bound to say that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I just checked it out with a friend of mine who is a pure physicalist - in other words, he thinks the universe is made up of lots of particles, whose behaviour is caused by something which happened previously - and his point is that free will is a metaphysical idea, not a physical one. Thus, for a physicalist, or indeed, any kind of naturalist, a metaphysical idea such as free will simply has no basis.
I think this goes back to the idea of free agents, since to have free will, presumably you must have an agent to exert will. But then for most theists, this is not a problem, since they can posit a soul or a self or an I, which does exert will. But again, this is not a physical entity, so for the physicalist, requires some evidence. So for someone like that, free will is simply not required in a description of stuff.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would not say it's fashionable really. I think if you support naturalism, then free will becomes very questionable, since there does not appear to be any agent to exert free will. This goes hand in hand with notions of physical determinism.
So I would say that an absence of free will is an inevitable consequence of many versions of naturalism.
However, I chat with quite a lot of people who also say that free will just seems intuitively apparent, so they are in a quandary, if they support naturalism.
I guess for theists, there is less difficulty with free will, but maybe there are still problems, e.g. do I choose my beliefs? I would say not. But yes, it is very complicated.
I've never studied philosophy so can only really examine this sort of thing in the most simplistic terms. It certainly feels like I have free will. What is it exactly about the "naturalistic approach" that causes a quandary?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
George
For many naturalists, as far as I can see, free will is difficult to find evidence for. They would argue that the universe consists of a very large number of particles whizzing around, determined by various factors.
So here, there is no room for an agent, who would carry out freely willed actions.
However, some naturalists do reconcile this with free will, I believe, actually Daniel Dennett does this.
The quandary would be when your ideas about the universe say one thing, and your own intuition tells you another - that I do make decisions, for example.
There is also all kinds of research in neuroscience going on, which seems to have interesting implications - for example, that I have made a decision before I realize it. But then Freud said this!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
There are two senses of free will that may or may not be relevant.
The first is to say that we have free will if our actions are caused by our appropriate action causing faculties, rather than some external power or agency bypassing them. In this sense, a naturalist can certainly affirm that we have free will, while many Calvinists and Lutherans would say that we don't.
The second sense is to say that we have free will if, in addition to the above, no prior set of facts about the state of the universe is sufficient to determine our actions or the probability of our actions. In that sense most naturalists would deny that we have free will, since naturalists largely believe that the matter constituting us is predictable at least to the degree of probability.
(I've phrased the second sense to include probability, since I don't think quantum mechanics is either here nor there. Saying that our actions are random doesn't really give us what we want from the second definition.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
It is interesting that there seem to be two discussians going on here.
One is Naturalists vs theists, the other Calvinists vs non-Calvinists (who are not necessarily Arminian by default.) Eastern Orthodox are non-Calvinists, incidentally.
ETA: Roman Catholics as well.
I noticed in another discussion how Calvinists and naturalists both (in one way or another) rejected free will. Who would have thought that such contrary worldviews had something in common after all?
[ 08. February 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
NB. I added my response before yours appeared, Dafyd, but we seem to be talking about the same thing.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Some people I've spoken to think that we don't have free will as, given our genetic make-up, upbringing and culture they believe that our thoughts, desires, words and actions are inevitable. Nobody, in their eyes, is therefore responsible for his or her behaviour, as they could do no other.
While I understand the reasoning, by observation the theory fails. We're able to learn, to change, and to exercise self-control, all of which require a will, a determination, a readiness for perseverance. We're able to discover our tendencies, whether learned or inherited, the triggers which initiate undesired behaviour, and deny them any progress.
Free will is for me a vital aspect of faith in God. We're able to freely choose whether or not to seek and find God, and if we do, we're able to freely decide whether or not to continue the relationship once started, and whether or not to serve God. We're therefore fully responsible for all we say and do.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Raptor Eye's post (above) -
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me. [/per sQUOTE]What baffles me is that you think very many people believe this.
Never said that.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[QB] Some people I've spoken to think that we don't have free will as, given our genetic make-up, upbringing and culture they believe that our thoughts, desires, words and actions are inevitable. Nobody, in their eyes, is therefore responsible for his or her behaviour, as they could do no other.
P
While I understand the reasoning, by observation the theory fails. We're able to learn, to change, and to exercise self-control, all of which require a will, a determination, a readiness for perseverance. We're able to discover our tendencies, whether learned or inherited, the triggers which initiate undesired behaviour, and deny them oany progress.
Free will is for me a vital aspect of faith in God. We're able to freely choose whether or not to seek and find God, and if we do, we're able to freely decide whether or not to continue the relationship once started, and whether or not to serve God. We're therefore fully responsible for all we say and do. [B]
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
And that doesn't even address the idea that if you seek you shall find.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm with the majority.
Like the crowd in Life of Brian: "You're all individuals.", "We're all individuals.". "I'm not.".
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
Got a bit delayed there. I'm being devil's advocate here, by the way, since I'm not an atheist.
Simply, that in a natural world, an agent is a metaphysical entity, and cannot be found in physical reality. Where is it? You could say your body or your brain have the powers of an agent, but where's the evidence for that?
But I think these arguments are often contradicted by a kind of intuitive sense that I am an agent.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think these arguments are often contradicted by a kind of intuitive sense that I am an agent.
Whatever one's philosophy about it all, everyone acts as if they were an agent. I don't think you can do otherwise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
And that doesn't even address the idea that if you seek you shall find.
Maybe all children have limited free-will, as they are dependant on their parents. But as they mature into adulthood, these persons have more free will to seek out God for themselves.
Let's face it, these days plenty of children which were nurtured in a christian household end up atheists, and not a few which were brought up atheists find religion - they maybe have lacked guidance, which is why they can fall prey to all kinds of wierd cults, but they have free will.
And don't forget that "seek and ye shall find" was addressed to Jesus' disciples - not to people who were looking for God.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
You seem to be confusing opportunity with freedom. Free will refers to ability to choose any of various options that are available to one. It doesn't refer to whatever processes or circumstances it would require to have things be(come) available.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
And that doesn't even address the idea that if you seek you shall find.
Maybe all children have limited free-will, as they are dependant on their parents. But as they mature into adulthood, these persons have more free will to seek out God for themselves.
Let's face it, these days plenty of children which were nurtured in a christian household end up atheists, and not a few which were brought up atheists find religion - they maybe have lacked guidance, which is why they can fall prey to all kinds of wierd cults, but they have free will.
And don't forget that "seek and ye shall find" was addressed to Jesus' disciples - not to people who were looking for God.
How a child is raised has so much to with his eventual choices as an adult that it limits his free will.
I wasn't speaking of scripture, though I knew I was quoting it. I was just saying that the post seemed to suggest that if a person chooses to seek god he will find him. Not true.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
You seem to be confusing opportunity with freedom. Free will refers to ability to choose any of various options that are available to one. It doesn't refer to whatever processes or circumstances it would require to have things be(come) available.
Ok.
But even "ability" varies greatly.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
But even "ability" varies greatly.
That I will not deny.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Offered as an interested amateur with no claim to inerrancy.
I think that, in general usage, when people say “free will” they mean that we can consciously decide to do a particular thing rather than another (or not do as the case may be). Clearly some people do not have unrestricted “free will” because of factors beyond their control.
Early research into the human brain was largely limited to noting changing personality traits when people survived major brain damage (such as a premature mining explosion sending a tamping rod through the brain). This supported the idea that certain areas of the brain are vital to some brain functions. Recently we have become able to study brains in real time through the use of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging . We now know that psychopaths (violent people who are unable to feel remorse or empathy) have damaged, malformed or missing brain structure in an area behind the right front of the brain. Clearly people with such abnormality are not choosing to behave as they do, any more than I have chosen to see so imperfectly that I need two lenses superimposed on my face before I start to drive a car. Currently, unlike my shortsightedness, we are unable to overcome such brain abnormality so fairness(?) would suggest that we should find a decent way of protecting society from such dangerous individuals whilst accepting that prison, punishment, retribution, revenge, indoctrination (religious or not) and education are inappropriate (through inevitable ineffectiveness) responses.
We are now asking the more disconcerting question – not do we have unrestricted “free will” but do we have any “free will”, at all, ever.
There seems to be a considerable body of experimental evidence, including using fMRI scanners, which suggests that our conscious brain plays no part in making decisions, but that, as with memory and sight for example, we tell ourselves stories to explain what we would like to believe is true, to smooth out the uncomfortable bumps in our mental processes. This evidence suggests that when we decide what to do the decision is made in our unconscious mind and relayed to our conscious mind. We kid ourselves that we are making a decision when, in fact, the decision is already made and we may have already started to act on the unconscious thought.
This does not mean that we are incapable of changing our reactions to situations or concepts. The hardwiring in our unconscious is partly genetic (and therefore unchangeable except by time and/or trauma) but the other part is learnt. All our experience contributes to the learnt part and can result in a rebalancing of the scales when sufficiently weighty input is added. Thus, whilst prison is ineffective for rehabilitating a psychopathic killer it may (for instance) influence a petty thief who has grown up in a criminal background.
Current thought suggests that attempts to replicate our thought processes (AI) have not been as successful as forecast because we tried to write a programme to solve all situations. It is now suggested that the brain actually operates by a plethora of routines and sub-routines and that our actions are the result of the interaction of all the relevant hard-wired elements of the unconscious. (The same part that organises our breathing, picking up a book, riding a bicycle, processing food etc. without us thinking about the muscles involved let alone telling them how to interact).
From "Supersense"
“The experience of free will is very real, but the reality of it is very doubtful. Cognitive scientists (those who study the mechanisms of thinking) believe that we are in fact conscious automata running a complex set of rule-based equations in our head. We are consciously aware of some of the outputs from these processes. These are our thoughts”.
Incidentally, I haven’t finished the book but, in my opinion, the author has marshalled an impressive array of information about the way we think but has, so far, failed to justify the conclusion he says he hopes to demonstrate.
Further reading, with many references to published experimental work, includes "Incognito: The Secret Lives of The Brain" and
"Free Will"
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Wikipedia on Epicurus: quote:
His theory differs from the earlier atomism of Democritus because he admits that atoms do not always follow straight lines but their direction of motion may occasionally exhibit a 'swerve' (clinamen). This allowed him to avoid the determinism implicit in the earlier atomism and to affirm free will.
I like this explanation! Even if our sub-conscious mind decides on an action before the conscious mind knows it, I think it is quite reasonable to think that free will is involved, since each person's brain has an individual collection of experiences and information which make that individual behave in whichever way he/she does. Sounds as if Epicurus was a man ahead of his time, who would enjoy the modern world!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
HughWillRidMe
Two points: it is time you read C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength.
Secondly the problem is that we can say that about psychopaths because that is not enough evidence. What we know is that Psychopaths have brain damage in a particular area. What we do not know is how many people in the population have similar brain damage but aren't psychopaths. Ay psychopaths are a very small portion of the population the ONLY way to find that out is population screening.
Of course if found the question would be what is the difference between those that are psychopathhs and those that are not. Free choice is only one of the options.
For those that are not statistically literate dealing with the rare implies that common statistical models can not be applied.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word just. What if you were to point to an aeroplane and comment on it's ability to fly and I responded don't be silly it can't possibly fly, it's just bits of metal and plastic.
Why does the fact that my brain is made of nerves and cells stop it from being able to choose one thing over another?
Or do I have the wrong definition of free will? I could have toast or cereal for breakfast. If I decide to have one rather than the other then I'm exercising free will. Are people using free will in a different context here?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Wikipedia on Epicurus: quote:
His theory differs from the earlier atomism of Democritus because he admits that atoms do not always follow straight lines but their direction of motion may occasionally exhibit a 'swerve' (clinamen). This allowed him to avoid the determinism implicit in the earlier atomism and to affirm free will.
I like this explanation! Even if our sub-conscious mind decides on an action before the conscious mind knows it, I think it is quite reasonable to think that free will is involved, since each person's brain has an individual collection of experiences and information which make that individual behave in whichever way he/she does. Sounds as if Epicurus was a man ahead of his time, who would enjoy the modern world!
And it's interesting that physical determinism is pretty much old hat now, as far as I can see. Word on the street, is that we are involved in many stochastic processes, i.e. that are unpredictable.
I'm not sure if this hooks up with an idea of choice, but the latter idea seems unavoidable. In some ways, it's a social requirement to believe that I have choice, even if there is no evidence that I do.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word just. What if you were to point to an aeroplane and comment on it's ability to fly and I responded don't be silly it can't possibly fly, it's just bits of metal and plastic.
Why does the fact that my brain is made of nerves and cells stop it from being able to choose one thing over another?
Or do I have the wrong definition of free will? I could have toast or cereal for breakfast. If I decide to have one rather than the other then I'm exercising free will. Are people using free will in a different context here?
The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
Otherwise, it begins to sound a bit like some arguments for theism - I know that God exists, because that's my experience. To which the atheist can of course reasonably reply, well, it's not mine, so I know God does not exist.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word just. What if you were to point to an aeroplane and comment on it's ability to fly and I responded don't be silly it can't possibly fly, it's just bits of metal and plastic.
Why does the fact that my brain is made of nerves and cells stop it from being able to choose one thing over another?
Or do I have the wrong definition of free will? I could have toast or cereal for breakfast. If I decide to have one rather than the other then I'm exercising free will. Are people using free will in a different context here?
The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
Otherwise, it begins to sound a bit like some arguments for theism - I know that God exists, because that's my experience. To which the atheist can of course reasonably reply, well, it's not mine, so I know God does not exist.
Ah I understand now. That's a really good way of putting it.
So we could say that it's possible that no being, not even God has free will.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
George
I am very happy for you to say that you feel that you have free will, but many atheists and naturalists are not happy with this, as it has a strange resemblance to theistic arguments (I feel that God exists).
But I think if you start to examine free will scientifically, it starts to vanish.
But still we all seem to find it unavoidable, so I think some naturalists call it an illusion, then everybody is happy, well, not really, that never happens.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
...So we could say that it's possible that no being, not even God has free will.
Actually, George, that's the one thing we cannot say - because no-one can know God, apart from what He chooses to reveal of Himself to us.
My signature (a quote from the current Pope) tells us that He most definitely does have free will. What Revelation is there to contradict this?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
...So we could say that it's possible that no being, not even God has free will.
Actually, George, that's the one thing we cannot say - because no-one can know God, apart from what He chooses to reveal of Himself to us.
My signature (a quote from the current Pope) tells us that He most definitely does have free will. What Revelation is there to contradict this?
I can just as easily say no-one can know me, apart from what I chooses to reveal of myself to them.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
George
You are hammering them today. Kudos!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
The theory would be that the cells, nerves and processes are George Spigot's 'you'.
After all, normally should you meet that bundle of cells, nerves and processes at a shipmeet you'd say you'd seen the person, even though you hadn't seen anything apart from the cells and processes.
It's not just naturalistic theories. Thomas Aquinas writes somewhere, 'I am my body'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Clearly people with such abnormality are not choosing to behave as they do, any more than I have chosen to see so imperfectly that I need two lenses superimposed on my face before I start to drive a car.
Clearly?
All you're saying is that psychopaths haven't chosen to be psychopaths. That doesn't show that they don't make choices.
quote:
Currently, unlike my shortsightedness, we are unable to overcome such brain abnormality so fairness(?) would suggest that we should find a decent way of protecting society from such dangerous individuals whilst accepting that prison, punishment, retribution, revenge, indoctrination (religious or not) and education are inappropriate (through inevitable ineffectiveness) responses.
If prison is inappropriate, what is left? ... Oh. Killing them.
quote:
There seems to be a considerable body of experimental evidence, including using fMRI scanners, which suggests that our conscious brain plays no part in making decisions, but that, as with memory and sight for example, we tell ourselves stories to explain what we would like to believe is true, to smooth out the uncomfortable bumps in our mental processes. This evidence suggests that when we decide what to do the decision is made in our unconscious mind and relayed to our conscious mind. We kid ourselves that we are making a decision when, in fact, the decision is already made and we may have already started to act on the unconscious thought.
This does not follow. Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
The theory would be that the cells, nerves and processes are George Spigot's 'you'.
After all, normally should you meet that bundle of cells, nerves and processes at a shipmeet you'd say you'd seen the person, even though you hadn't seen anything apart from the cells and processes.
It's not just naturalistic theories. Thomas Aquinas writes somewhere, 'I am my body'.
Well, the radical naturalists and atheists would probably deny that persons exist. Although, in my experience, they tend to get a bit tongue-tied over that one, since as with free will, it seems to take them into complete eliminativism, which is a scary place. I think maybe there are then not really any ideas even.
Good point about Aquinas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I have long liked the formula I heard whilst a grad student in Philosophy: the soul or self is an epiphenomenon of the body. It's something that the body does, so to speak. A function as much as a thing.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
On this path solipsism lies. If we're not to all become Skinnerians, we're going to have to trust each other's reports of their internal states.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I can just as easily say no-one can know me, apart from what I chooses to reveal of myself to them.
This seems eminently reasonable.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have long liked the formula I heard whilst a grad student in Philosophy: the soul or self is an epiphenomenon of the body. It's something that the body does, so to speak. A function as much as a thing.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
On this path solipsism lies. If we're not to all become Skinnerians, we're going to have to trust each other's reports of their internal states.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I can just as easily say no-one can know me, apart from what I chooses to reveal of myself to them.
This seems eminently reasonable.
On your point about solipsism, surely the point here is that if we trust X, who narrates that he experiences God, and experiences free will, then we are duty bound also to trust Y, who says he doesn't. This is OK, I guess, since then we are led to relativism!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
