Is there such a thing as free will?

[Blackthornone]

That's an evasion. You're speculating that what's right in front of you is not what it seems with zero evidence to suggest that it isn't.

If it is obvious that we have free will, then it should be obvious that we have souls, which is what allows our free will.
There is no other way we could have free will.

An intelligence must be able to exist completely independently of something in order to be objective about it.
One can only have free will if one is objective.
You cannot have objectivity regarding living in the physical world if the physical world is what created you.
If your consciousness was created by the physical, you could not have free will in it.

 

[devilof76]

Your argument is circular, baseless, and the echo chamber which keeps you convinced of its veracity is insufficient to convince anyone who has a logical bone in their brain. How about you answer the arguments presented which have repeatedly demolished your claims instead of repeating yourself in hopes that it will somehow make your views true?

Criminals are incarcerated because they can't control their actions. Whether each criminal is actually responsible for committing those actions is of secondary importance.
Whether they did it or they allowed it to be done through them makes no practical difference.

You incarcerate people to protect society from them.

Criminals are incarcerated because they are responsible for their actions. Otherwise, why aren't we incarcerating all of the factors alleged to have been the cause of their behavior? How can we endure as a society if the true cause is left to threaten us?

Your BS makes as much sense as a sand castle built as protection against the ocean.

 

[BadMoon]

That **** ain't mine.

 

[devilof76]

Didn't you just say that? Maybe you forgot to say it in English.

 

[BadMoon]

Didn't you just say that? Maybe you forgot to say it in English.

I forgot to add the s at the end of mine.

 

[DarkMagic]

Great, so every criminal should be set free? I mean it wasn't them right? How can they be blamed for their acts? In the immortal words of every thug arrested on COPS "That **** ain't mine!"

On personal responsibility in a "free-will-is-an-illusion/cause-and-effect" universe: You can say that we can't blame a criminal for his acts because his acts are just the universe unfolding in the only possible way it could unfold, a collection of inevitable causes led to the effect of him committing the crime. And then of course it follows that his crime becomes the cause of the inevitable effect of society throwing him in jail. We can't blame him for his crime, sure, because he had no choice really, right? You also then can't blame us for punishing him either then, right? After all, we have no choice either.

We wouldn't be questioning whether we had it or not if we didn't. We couldn't.

Not true, especially if we live in a deterministic universe. Then we are not questioning whether we have free will because we obviously (or "self-evidently") have it. No, if we are in a deterministic universe, we are questioning the existence of free will at this very moment simply because this is the inevitable result of all moments before this one since the beginning of time.

I am paraphrasing the latest science about consciousness and free will. The most precise measurements available now show that our brains are already firing signals to commit an action way before we can consciously register having made the decision to act. Who knows, maybe in the future, technology will improve, and even more precise timings will show a different result? That's the great thing about good science, it doesn't hold onto the ego of stubbornly keeping an outdated position if better evidence refutes it.

The argument you're using to evade this (that science says you can't control your own thinking

Do not misunderstand my argument. It's a great simplification to say that science says "you" can't control your own thinking, and unless we are clear about the different definitions of "you" (or "I") as it relates to discussions of consciousness, there will always be miscommunication of ideas. In an attempt to be more clear I will restate: Science says you (the conscious you, the self-aware you) is late to the party when a decision is made. You can say it is aware of what is happening (more accurately, what juuust happened), but it is more an observer than an action-taker. Your consciousness, aka the you we are talking about here is only the top level layer. But there is not only one "you" when we're talking about the workings of your mind is there? Is your subconscious not also you? That you might be the one that makes a decision is made way before that conscious you is even aware of it. Present evidence strongly shows that the conscious you is not the "decider". Is the subconscious you the "decider"? Maybe. Does it happen on an even deeper level than that? Deterministic universe? Quantum chance? Maybe.

It's not an evasion to say that science cannot explain the details of how, where, and when a decision is made. Science is pretty certain* of where and when a decision DOES NOT get made though--and that place is the top level conscious you.

*As certain as science gets, that is---until new better evidence comes along.

It demands that decisions be made without the employment of any prior knowledge which the conscious mind has programmed into the subconscious

Often, decisions ARE made "without the employment of any prior knowledge which the conscious mind has programmed into the subconscious". In fact you just perfectly described what instinct is. When a person, who has never seen or heard of a rattlesnake in their lives, happens upon one on a stroll in the woods (which hopefully, doesn't see them first) they do not stop and think about all of their previous experiences with snakes (because they have none) before getting the immediate and sinking feeling in their stomach that they need to get away from that thing as quickly and quietly as possible. As you stated the survival of the organism is dependant on being able to make a decision to take action (fight or flight) very quickly in situations such as this. How quickly? Much faster than the top level you can focus and engage on the situation, consider your options, and then decide it's a good idea to leave.

The introspective data available to support the self-evidency of consciousness is the effort required on the part of the observer at the base level of consciousness: we do not automatically know what we're observing; we have to volitionally exert the required energy to understand. Staring at a physics text will not teach you phyics. Reading it with a fully engaged attention, consciously differentiating and integrating the information within the context of data and experimentation, and comprehending how it makes sense as opposed to other explanations of nature is not something that happens unless you make it happen.

The argument you're using to evade this (that science says you can't control your own thinking; how you can have science without self-initiated, self-monitored mental focus is a complete mystery, apparently ) relies on an acausal representation of free will.

That's the thing about reality, and our best approximations/theories etc of how it works (science). It exists INDEPENDENTLY of whether or not we are consciously focused on it. If you are just looking at the words of a physics text book, but not being focused on understanding and engaging with the material, does that make the message of the material any less accurate? Of course not. A fact about reality doesn't need someone to be engaged and focused on it for it to be true. A tree falling in the forest makes a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. We know this because we know that 100% of the time when things collide in a non-vacuum place where there are air particles that can be disturbed (like a forest), those particles get disturbed by the collision and move, and this is the very definition of sound. Reality, (and the facts of it) exists whether or not you are there paying focused attention to it.

Free will is not the ability to make decisions in a vacuum. It's the ability to control one's attention for the purpose of developing a conceptual grasp of the world. This is almost a mirror image of the religious claim that to be truly free, a decision has to be unrestrained by the material world. Is this the nonsense that Sam Harris is peddling? Lol.

So free will is reactionary to things encountered in the world? What exactly is "free" about that? That's just cause and effect.

 

[The Ween]

After that.......makes me wonder where King is.

 

[Mr. Green]

the mind's willing but the body not.

 

[fosing]

After that.......makes me wonder where King is.

too many words.


that's what he'd say.

 

[galmando]

That's the great thing about good science, it doesn't hold onto the ego of stubbornly keeping an outdated position if better evidence refutes it.

This is the point that I try and get across to my friends who say that I am closed minded because I do not believe in god

It could not be any more opposite

I am able to consider all options, without fear of any judgement and, using logic and evidence, decide on what I feel is currently the best fit

But it could always change. Hence why I would never say that I truly believe in something

It's kinda like that line from Dogma that Chris Rocks says, I can't remeber it right now

 

[devilof76]

Not true, especially if we live in a deterministic universe. Then we are not questioning whether we have free will because we obviously (or "self-evidently") have it. No, if we are in a deterministic universe, we are questioning the existence of free will at this very moment simply because this is the inevitable result of all moments before this one since the beginning of time.

If there is no alternative to our course of action--if we can't control what we do, or what we think---what's the point of questioning? How can you have a question without doubt? How can you have doubt if your consciousness is automatic and incapable of deviating from whatever your surroundings deterministically program into it?

I am paraphrasing the latest science about consciousness and free will.

So you've worked this out for yourself and didn't swallow second hand information unchewed. Congratulations.

The most precise measurements available now show that our brains are already firing signals to commit an action way before we can consciously register having made the decision to act.

You and your scientists have managed to not only throw out the baby. You actually managed to throw out the bathwater too. Don't let anyone tell you that theoretical neuroscience is philosophically useless. Look at what they can achieve when they don't let common sense get in their way!!!



The brain isn't conscious. It's grey matter and electro-chemical circuits.

Consciousness is not the brain; consciousness is that 'top layer' you so casually dismissed as irrelevant in a conversation about... consciousness.

Who knows, maybe in the future, technology will improve, and even more precise timings will show a different result? That's the great thing about good science, it doesn't hold onto the ego of stubbornly keeping an outdated position if better evidence refutes it.

With scientists like this, who needs witch doctors?

Present evidence strongly shows that the conscious you is not the "decider". Is the subconscious you the "decider"? Maybe. Does it happen on an even deeper level than that? Deterministic universe? Quantum chance? Maybe.

If it's not the conscious mind deciding, it's not a decision. It's just a mechanistic reaction. The whole concept of decision depends on the concept of free will. If there's no free will, there are no decisions.

Why are we discussing these crazy things called decisions again? Or, right. Because we there's no such thing as free will.

It's not an evasion to say that science cannot explain the details of how, where, and when a decision is made. Science is pretty certain* of where and when a decision DOES NOT get made though--and that place is the top level conscious you.

'Science' can't even tell the difference between an organic computer and the computer's operator.

Often, decisions ARE made "without the employment of any prior knowledge which the conscious mind has programmed into the subconscious". In fact you just perfectly described what instinct is. When a person, who has never seen or heard of a rattlesnake in their lives, happens upon one on a stroll in the woods (which hopefully, doesn't see them first) they do not stop and think about all of their previous experiences with snakes (because they have none) before getting the immediate and sinking feeling in their stomach that they need to get away from that thing as quickly and quietly as possible. As you stated the survival of the organism is dependant on being able to make a decision to take action (fight or flight) very quickly in situations such as this. How quickly? Much faster than the top level you can focus and engage on the situation, consider your options, and then decide it's a good idea to leave.

A reaction is not a decision. Emotions play the role of instinct in humans. They are automatic responses based on the content of the sub-conscious, whose content was moderated by the effort of the conscious mind. If you taught your sub-conscious that snakes were soft and cuddly and innocuous like a baby, you wouldn't have a fight or flight reaction. I'd love to know how you're going to respond to a snake when you have zero knowledge of their nature. At most, you'd be responding to your ignorance of the situation, which will either be cautiously fearful in the case of someone who tends not to presume, or doltishly naive in the case of someone who has never learned to be concerned when they don't know what the hell is going on.

Your hypothetical person doesn't exist. Humans don't have instinct, i.e. automatic knowledge.

That's the thing about reality, and our best approximations/theories etc of how it works (science). It exists INDEPENDENTLY of whether or not we are consciously focused on it. If you are just looking at the words of a physics text book, but not being focused on understanding and engaging with the material, does that make the message of the material any less accurate? Of course not. A fact about reality doesn't need someone to be engaged and focused on it for it to be true. A tree falling in the forest makes a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. We know this because we know that 100% of the time when things collide in a non-vacuum place where there are air particles that can be disturbed (like a forest), those particles get disturbed by the collision and move, and this is the very definition of sound. Reality, (and the facts of it) exists whether or not you are there paying focused attention to it.

So how about you pay attention to it?

My point had nothing to do with the priority of existence over consciousness. My point was that you cannot learn the identity of the information in the book without making the effort to do so. Human consciousness is volitional, which means that it is not automatic. It requires the subject to actively initiate cognition, which is the true locus of free will: the choice to be conscious, or not.

If it were automatic, determined, instinctual, you would not have to do a damned thing.

So free will is reactionary to things encountered in the world? What exactly is "free" about that? That's just cause and effect.

I didn't call it reactionary. I said it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Having the ability to choose doesn't mean that your options are limitless, so limitless options couldn't possibly be a condition for the existence of volitional consciousness.

So, how is free will invalidated on account of it being 'just' cause and effect? Free will is supposed to be exempt from causality to be valid? You mean for it to exist, it has to not exist? I'm not aware of any phenomenon in reality that is acausal, but I'm sure you'll come up with some cutting edge horse**** to 'educate' me with.

 

[DarkMagic]

If there is no alternative to our course of action--if we can't control what we do, or what we think---what's the point of questioning? How can you have a question without doubt? How can you have doubt if your consciousness is automatic and incapable of deviating from whatever your surroundings deterministically program into it?





So you've worked this out for yourself and didn't swallow second hand information unchewed. Congratulations.



You and your scientists have managed to not only throw out the baby. You actually managed to throw out the bathwater too. Don't let anyone tell you that theoretical neuroscience is philosophically useless. Look at what they can achieve when they don't let common sense get in their way!!!



The brain isn't conscious. It's grey matter and electro-chemical circuits.

Consciousness is not the brain; consciousness is that 'top layer' you so casually dismissed as irrelevant in a conversation about... consciousness.



With scientists like this, who needs witch doctors?



If it's not the conscious mind deciding, it's not a decision. It's just a mechanistic reaction. The whole concept of decision depends on the concept of free will. If there's no free will, there are no decisions.

Why are we discussing these crazy things called decisions again? Or, right. Because we there's no such thing as free will.



'Science' can't even tell the difference between an organic computer and the computer's operator.



A reaction is not a decision. Emotions play the role of instinct in humans. They are automatic responses based on the content of the sub-conscious, whose content was moderated by the effort of the conscious mind. If you taught your sub-conscious that snakes were soft and cuddly and innocuous like a baby, you wouldn't have a fight or flight reaction. I'd love to know how you're going to respond to a snake when you have zero knowledge of their nature. At most, you'd be responding to your ignorance of the situation, which will either be cautiously fearful in the case of someone who tends not to presume, or doltishly naive in the case of someone who has never learned to be concerned when they don't know what the hell is going on.

Your hypothetical person doesn't exist. Humans don't have instinct, i.e. automatic knowledge.

So how about you pay attention to it?

My point had nothing to do with the priority of existence over consciousness. My point was that you cannot learn the identity of the information in the book without making the effort to do so. Human consciousness is volitional, which means that it is not automatic. It requires the subject to actively initiate cognition, which is the true locus of free will: the choice to be conscious, or not.

If it were automatic, determined, instinctual, you would not have to do a damned thing.



I didn't call it reactionary. I said it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Having the ability to choose doesn't mean that your options are limitless, so limitless options couldn't possibly be a condition for the existence of volitional consciousness.

So, how is free will invalidated on account of it being 'just' cause and effect? Free will is supposed to be exempt from causality to be valid? You mean for it to exist, it has to not exist? I'm not aware of any phenomenon in reality that is acausal, but I'm sure you'll come up with some cutting edge horse**** to 'educate' me with.

Honestly, I'm not sure how your personal attacks help the conversation at all. I thought the point of this discussion is to come to a better understanding of different points of view / debate etc. I'm not going to respond to your attacks in kind with insults directed at you, but later when I have more time, I will sift through your post to filter out the discussion at hand and respond specifically to those points. Off to work now, (because I have no choice! ) Have a good day.

 

[devilof76]

So you're as oblivious to your own condescending tone as you are your decision to get hung up on barbs, rather than address the argument?

 

[galmando]

Humans don't have instinct, i.e. automatic knowledge.

I'm certain that isn't true, surpressed perhaps, but certainly present at an early age

a baby will automatically suckle without prior knowledge of having to do so

 

[DiFabio]

You're all puppets creating false illusions to help you sleep at night. A futile quest for self-realization.

Me? I'm free, I DO WHAT I WANT.

 

[devilof76]

What do we need illusions for if we're puppets with no power to change our fate?

I'm certain that isn't true, surpressed perhaps, but certainly present at an early age

a baby will automatically suckle without prior knowledge of having to do so

That's a reflex. Is coughing an instinct? No different.

 

[galmando]

It's still classed as an instictive behaviour though

 

[devilof76]

Then it's poorly classified. It has nothing in common with the high level mental behaviors which define human consciousness. For starters, it's not conscious behavior.

 

[DiFabio]

What do we need illusions for if we're puppets with no power to change our fate?

To blind us from the depressing strings of course.

 

[devilof76]

Why would we be depressed if there's no other option? Other animals don't get depressed.