Free will?

[Cythraul]

ahh yes...the perennial ethical question "How should we treat defectives?"

 

[no country for old wainds]

lol just remembered this thread

the link demiurge posted is a good read

 

[Cythraul]

I think I kind of sucked back then. I'll read that link later; it does look interesting.

compatibilism lol

 

[Cythraul]

ok so this guy makes the following claim towards the beginning of the essay. He says: "To justify a causeless will on the grounds that a person can choose what he or she does not really wish to choose (wills what is not really willed) is self-contradictory."

I don't see how it's self-contradictory to suppose that a person can choose what he or she does not really wish to choose. It seems as though I frequently choose to do things that I don't really want to choose to do. The only way this guy's view would seem plausible is if desire was inherent in the very notion of willing. But why should one accept that? If that were the case then it would be a trivial fact about anything that I do that I desired to do it. How funny would it sound if someone said "Ahh you see, you didn't desire to go to school today but now that we've seen that you actually did go to school today then you really did desire to go."?

 

[Justin S.]

The question does have real political and ethical import however. Recognizing the limits of 'choice' and 'free will' frees us ethically to recognize natural hierarchies among humans and releases us from the obligation to treat unequal people equally.

[reply to E.A.] :zombie:

[reply to E.A.] ahh yes...the perennial ethical question "How should we treat defectives?"

I agree with E.A. that honest reflection upon the conditions of existence displays difference as it is. Difference is (moreover, what is "equality", what would it even be (the equal? in what sense?)clearly, the "equal" is an idea ripped from its context in mathematics and then projected upon the world in an artificial and obscene way). However, as soon as hierarchies enter, we are dealing with human derived purposiveness and evaluation (not that this is somehow categorically "invalid", just highly debatable and prone to error).

I dont agree that this thinking "releases" us from ethics, but it does point to the hollowness of such a distinction- by our decisions in the "free play" of whatever amount there is, we are already functioning in an original "ethical" manner, a mode that is more primordial than the common metaphysical understanding of "ethics".

This does create many choices, but they cannot be resolved by "top down" systems.

Concerning "defectives": The terms is problematic, but the original motivation still stands: how to respond to entities that assail you with their presence, language, competition, and will, yet are incapable of phenomenological and ontological thought (reflection on:to perceive, to be)? How to navigate, or more appropriately, negotiate this fact?

 

[no country for old wainds]

"Ahh you see, you didn't desire to go to school today but now that we've seen that you actually did go to school today then you really did desire to go."?

You're still doing the most desirable option available to you though. The way I see it, "desire" in this context is a relative term.

 

[Cythraul]

But that's precisely what I'm questioning. What is desire relative to in this context anyway?

Suppose I want to get into the porn movie business but I have to do some gay porn first. Does that mean that I want to do gay porn?

 

[Imp!]

Whatever, I'll stick out my neck here.

If we truly do not have free will, and everything is out of our control, are rapists and murderers not bad people? I know people can sympathize for some criminals, perhaps they were doomed from the very beginning, but what about someone like Adolf Hitler, did he actually not have any say in whether he should destroy 11 million people? Why are some kids raised by racist parents end up being racist, while others end up shedding the bigotry they were raised on? I'm not assuming myself to be a genius or anything, I just think the anti-free willers should be able to explain how this is possible. Does believing we have no free-will automatically mean that Albert Einstein was supposed to write his theories? So it was all destined to happen anyway? I'm almost starting to believe we have no free will, but the idea that I'm going to be a failure or success without any input from myself seems illogical...

 

[Imp!]

But that's precisely what I'm questioning. What is desire relative to in this context anyway?

Suppose I want to get into the porn movie business but I have to do some gay porn first. Does that mean that I want to do gay porn?

Timebird's argument still works, it's not the gay porn you want to do, but it's what you have to do based on your desires (which is doing the fun porn ) which are already pre-programmed in your brain anyway by the multiple experiences you've had, people you've met and genes you've inherited. Motherfucker, I'm starting to understand the argument here, I just don't know if I want to believe it.

Oh, oh, and, if you choose not to do the porn thing, because of the gay thing, then that decision is either based on your upbringing, or biology, which you really had no control of.

 

[Opethian666]

So again with the computer analology,

The body, is the computer
The user is the other unexplainable presence.
Now some programs are pre installed so that it functions. We will call those base programs Genes(Gprogs). Then there are programs that get installed by our environment(Eprogs). Sometimes those programs from the environment alter the way our basic gene programs work(like a computer virus or malware). Such as phobia program using our nartural need for fear and alter it so we fear things we do not need to fear.

Now most users of their computers cannot change the programs, or at least the core program. In these programs there are only so many options available. And sometimes when normally functioning programs have conflict with other programs we call these things errors (mental problems, or feedback loops).

What Biology has done is mapped out the hardware of the computer, so that it can fix the hardware problems because they are easier to see. Sometimes these fixes change how the programs run. Sometimes better(cures) sometimes worse(most drugs now).

Psychology then is the study of programs. The problem is that because other people run other programs that are not always the same, its hard for the user on the other end to comprehend why the other users computer is always getting its errors.

Now some people discover that they can program their own programs to create a desired effect. Most people who learn this, only patch other programs so that they can still run other programs better, but still get errors every once in a while. These programs can be called defense mechinisms or coping strategies.

If your lucky, you can install very good anitvirus/malware software which can prevent unwanted programs (like religion), and fixed damaged ones from programs like religion.

Then there are those who know how to program and deprogram anything on their computer. They can remove harmful programs and errors like the remove software function in the control panel.

The control panel of our computers isn't found in conscious awareness, it is only found in the unconscious. You can acess this control panel through a program that is a Gprog called Hypnosis. It is here where the user can delete(amnesia or reversal) all uneeded or undesirable programs, and it gives them the ability to write in programs that will make them function to the best that is possible with that computer. Or at least if it isn't the user doing it, it is an experienced programmer who knows how to get the acess to the control panel in your brain.

When people learn to meditate to blissful states, they are slowly creating a program for a desired effect without external stimulous effecting the outcome(besides of course problems with the body which make make such things very difficult).

This is a nice analogy but it has nothing to do with free will. You didn't propose any analog for whatever causes free will iyo. And please don't say that it is the user of the pc .

Now I don't want to hear any more about determinism because I have read much on this subject and I understand it, but I do not accept it.

And what are your reasons/arguments for not accepting it?

 

[Opethian666]

Yes, your right, I have never heard of it, but I can still post about it.
And its called applied science, which is the only use for science.

So I guess understanding the world around you is not important to you?

I have given many, or have you already forgot.

Not at all. You have not been able to give one small concise argument for free will, only unsupported personal opinions and examples that had nothing to do with free will. But please, repost whatever it is you think makes a case for there being free will, and I'll tell you why it's not a valid argument.

Nah, if you want them so bad get them yourself, I don't want to waste my time on someone who will not appreciate my efforst anyways. But I do know that the so called LAWS of thermodynamics aren't all true. I think it was entrophy.

I will appreciate your efforts if you use evidence to support your opinion and use arguments to support your reasoning. Most of what you have posted is just stream of consciousness talk without any evidence or support or even a good structure. You THINK it was entropy, and you spell it wrong too? Come on, if you make statements like this, you need to explain what exactly you mean, give me some references, and make your case decently. I hope you do realise that YEC's often use this tactic of making huge statements (like what you said about the laws of physics and thermodynamics) and not supporting them? If you're in a debate, you support your assertions, or you drop out of the debate. It's your choice.

This statement(in bold) is a paradox of what you are arguing. Or are you agreeing with me?

It is not a paradox of what I am arguing at all. I think this is the basis of our conflict of views. What I mean when I say environmental impulses, I do not mean the environment in which I grew up and which surrounded me during every part of my life in the past. Because this information is already stored in the current structure of my body (memories, changes of my initial body, etc...). What I mean by environmental impulses, is the information that my body receives through its senses from its current environment at a specific moment in time. Now from a few of your posts you seemed to imply that you thought I meant past environment when I used environmental impulses. This is not the case. In this post's case, I meant "not conditioned" as a way of saying that I have not just been brainwashed into believing every word written in science books without critically examining them and being skeptic about what they say. Not being conditioned in this case does not imply that I have free will, it just implies that my body won't just accept any information from books it sees before it without examining whether that information is accurate and founded.

They are not attacks, rather, they are observations of your statements. Very much in the same way you have done to me.

Ok, but perhaps you should observe some more before you write your conclusions down, because they are often false and misguided.

Like i said, applied science is all science is usefull for. You are creating a religion out of science.

No I am not, because this has nothing to do with religion. There's no involvement of any gods or any spiritual beings or anything supernatural. This has to do with the material world, with the way humans behave and how their brain leads them to do what they do. Again, you seem not to grasp the link between the question of free will and the physical world. Strange, because I seemed to recall you saying that this has nothing do with any supernatural powers (not that I even believe in such). It seems to me you hold to yourself and your ability to "choose" a certain divine status, and the loss of the concept of free will would make you lose this divinity, and you can't accept this.

that hillarious statement is called.... wait for it.... experiements. Without thme how will we know if hypothesis are false?

There's a difference between science that uses experiments as a test and verification for theories and hypothesises, and science that just makes up laws and theories from observations they found by doing experiments, without trying to find a good theoretical explanation first (this is not the scientific method).

Wow, thats good to hear. So what about the specifically unaccepted science? What about the earth being flat? We say it is wrong now, but it was not always so.

Like I said, science in the past and science now is very different. We have a little something called the scientific method and peer criticism now.

And as far as I see it, you are telling me that earth is flat when I know it isn't. or you say X causes Z. I am telling you X causes Y and Y causes Z.

Another unfounded statement. But this is a very good analogy to express what I'm trying to say, so I'll make use of it.
In actuality, I am saying that for a curve (the curve represents the universal laws in the analogy) situated in an (X,Y,Z) system, if you know X and Y (body structure and environmental impulses), you know Z (the action of the body), and there is only one possibility for Z. What you are saying is that Z could be anything, even if X and Y are clearly defined. You are saying the curve doesn't exist, or that there are an infinite amount of different curves with the same X and Y coordinates, but different Z coordinates (thus different universal laws). You are saying there are no clearly defined laws in our universe.

No you may not. Besides, I could read every scienctific paper in the world and not go to a 'college' and still have more knowledge then you will ever have on the subject, so schooling doesn't matter.

Schooling does matter, because it enables you to see where my point of view comes from, and without knowing anything about biochemistry and physics you will not even be able to see what I'm trying to explain.

So you agree that scientists can be wrong! So how do we know all the things you are saying are correct? Besides it saying so in your textbook there? Well because we can test them right? But isn't it also true that those principles only work in conditions that have to be met in order for them to work properly. Maybe the observer of the experiment has a direct influence on the result. Do you know much about quantum physics?

Yes I do, I've had it in my physics courses and it comes up again in just about any analysis in organic/inorganic chemistry course I have, so you don't need to worry about that. I am aware of the Heisenberg uncertainty. But now I don't think you are that foolish to tell me that something on this scale and magnitude has any effect on the difference between choosing to turn on your pc and playing a game, or going out to the pub with your friends, now do you? And I hope you do realise that if principles like these are made for certain conditions, that usually these conditions are met in the cases where the principles are used, or that there are different principles for different conditions? Or that the principle is just a slimmed down version of a principle that works in all conditions, but is too complex to be used in a practical way, and thus simplified to an easier to use form?

ANd just because you dont' want to respond to something, is no need to call it a strawman.

I did respond to it, didn't I? Again the irony and hypocrisy, you used this post to divert attention to something entirely else because it was you who didn't want to respond to my post (and you didn't, and only responded after I asked you in the post following it), while I took the decency to respond to your little strawman. And yes, it was definitely a strawman, because the only point it made was that scientists can make erroneous statements, which had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing. You have still not responded to most of the points I made and the questions contained in that post, so please go ahead and answer them before accusing me of not responding something which I did respond too, even when it was a strawman.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well at least you finally know that its the ghost in the shell, for me, and that is the only reason I think we have free choice. The fact that we exercise the use of free will on a daily basis is proof enough for me. You don't have to agree with me, but you should at least understand my point of view, and after so many examples, with the same undlying theme, which maybe you didn't pick up on, that I am also a poly-soliphist. I am taking the advice of the smarter users on this forum and I am going to stop disscussion of such a topic. But I think you should still read that essay, as it was the basis of that one post.

 

[Nile577]

Hmm, interesting thread.

As the antithesis of 'freewill,' determinism is usually defined by a belief that the future is inevitable. Etymologically the term "in-evitable" is similar to 'unavoidable.' This is a curious statement. As a being in the present, yes the future is inevitable – I cannot avoid it. Is the nature of that future defined? Well, if we hold that the future is 'unavoiable,' this posits an 'avoider' who is seemingly negated. I think it fair to say that one of the capacities of a human being is its ability to avoid things. For example, if I throw a brick at you, there is a good chance that your neurones will fire quickly enough for you to dodge. Hence rigid determinism is not compatible with human consciousness. Indeed, our existential condition is defined, I think, by the fact that we witness the universe through the filter of human emotion. Anecdote: your mother’s molecules are spread to a fine strawberry paste across a highway. Listen through your tears and you will utter, “it easily could have been avoided.” Within this locus, as Nietzshe said: only as an aesthetic phenomenon is the world justified.

To (crudely) sum up the most notable ambassador of free will, J.P. Sartre: the for-itself ‘exists’ the future by mapping lack on to its possibilities. Lack allows a reconciliation of the in-itself and for-itself as a horizon of ontological possibility. The nothing of the for-itself exists as the lack of what it is not and shifts this being in accordance to adapting possibilities: that which we strive for; that which we avoid. The for-itself exists as nothingness but its nothingness IS its past. The present is that from which the for-itself flees. A metaphor: man is a horse pulling a cart from which a plank is tied, dangling a carrot in front of him. The seat of possibilities is consciousness and consciousness is the nothing through which possibilities arise as potential, if you like, ‘ontic-ontological thises'. The deterministic possibility exists in consciousness as one possibility from a spectrum combining to colour our being. That is: we ARE determinism in that we disclose our being through its hypothesis and we ARE freewill as that possibility likewise affects our existential integument.

The question of freewill vs. determinism is a false dualism.

 

[Nile577]

Also: I don't think scientific thought is very helpful in regards to this argument. The objective, scientific perspective is the meaningless nihilism that has plagued scientific and rational thought since Socrates posited a divide between reason and "madness." I utterly refute the idea of such a perspective's existence in the sense it is employed here. I believe reason, science and rational thought have no conception or understanding of 'being'.

We exist alongside the world and, because existence precedes cognition, awaken to life having already 'fallen-into-being.' As Heidegger noted: humans exist as Dasein and interact with their surroundings through the differing relationships of care. I.e. an object may be a "glass" if I am "being-towards-wanting-to-get-a-drink," or that same object may become a weapon if I am "being-towards-wanting-to-do-violence-upon-someone.' Our relationship with our environment is one of the ways of defining OUR being. Now what is meant by "being?"

To elucidate a subtlety in the Germanic language:

"'Science understands the universe as being comprised of beings (in the German, Seiendes, or singular das seiende). These are entities, having characteristics that define or determine them. They are "that which is" - perhaps "things" in the world, perhaps events, relations or processes. They can be studied as the objects of science and everyday knowledge

Beings (sein) denotes the BEING OF these entities, being as such: the fact that they have their existence. That they ARE. This is the proper concern of philosophy.

This is a distinction between WHAT THERE IS (entities, in all their multiplicity - beings) and THAT THEY ARE (the existing of those entities - Being). This is a distinction between 'being' and 'Being' with a capital letter.

Two kinds of statement can be made:

ONTIC - a statement ABOUT some entity or other (being).

ONTOLOGICAL - a statement concerning the BEING of such entities (Being).

The sciences and much Western philosophy try to amass knowledge of particular entities, their characteristics, their relations to each other, etc. This preoccupation with being and ontic knowledge leads to a forgetting of Being. Being is not A being. It is not an entity. Nor is it a class of entities, nor some property or characteristic of them. Being is not any "thing." It is not simply available to the senses. You can't just go and have a look at it, nor listen in on it, to find out how it's doing. You can't transport it, nor sell it (how could we know how much we were getting). It resists sensory apprehension, characterization, disposability, commodification and measurement.'"

- Introducing Heidegger, Collins and Selina, pp 21-23

Science says Molecules and particles are what this television set IS. Or even simply makes a statement like: this television set IS. But it NEVER defines what the "is" IS. That is, it never encounters the question of ontological being.

Therefore, there is no ontical perspective and it is senseless to argue determinism from it. It is a meaningless term. It is a nihilism, a nothing, a fabrication and a dishonest proposition. It is based on a false scaffold. It has evaded the question of how and why things EXIST, what it IS to EXIST and what the meaning and character of that BEING is.

Consciousness is the vector through which everything acquires 'meaning.' This is the ontological MEANING of consciousness' being in the world. Consciousness shepherds the realm of infinite possibilities and infinite potential into the realm of the World by ontologically disclosing it.

Reasoned, scientific thought appears to present a useful methodology for accomplishing some excellent (from a human perspective) technological advancements. However, it is damaging when this thought becomes an ideological worldview, for - as argued above - it exists seemingly oblivious to the most fundamental question of all: that of the MEANING of 'existing.' Scientific/Technological thought attempts to fix 'being-there' as a commodity for utilisation. It DISPOSES rather than DISCLOSES. I would prefer to see scientific thought as a tiny stone, harsh and brutal on the site of infinite and gentle poetic potentiality. We must re-awaken the ability to disclose what technology disposes. We must contextualize ontical thought as either meaningless or a narrow, dubiously founded minimising of ontological potentiality. This is the misery of the western technological ethos and this is the misery which creates the foundationless 'freewill vs. dualism' question.

You have freewill to disclose life as determinism.

 

[Nile577]

Cursed double-post gremlins. May Dave Holland offer to give their children drum lessons.

 

[Øjeblikket]

"I believe reason, science and rational thought have no conception or understanding of 'being'." - Nile577

I think perhaps you're jumping to conclusions. Especially since a brief familiarity with ontology almost necessitates an appreciation for the 'science' of being.

Nile577
Two kinds of statement can be made:

ONTIC - a statement ABOUT some entity or other (being).

ONTOLOGICAL - a statement concerning the BEING of such entities (Being).

I could almost swear I've read that before. However, these terms outline the rational, scientific approach to discussing and understanding being. I see you outlined Sein, but I did not locate any Heideggerian influenced reference to Dasein, or being-there.

 

[Øjeblikket]

hmm, on second thought, that quote is familiar to me because it is an exact quote from a book on Heidegger, which I happen to own.

Two kinds of statements can be made.

Ontic: a statement about some entity or other...

Ontological: a statement concerning the being of such entities. - p. 22, Introducing Heidegger, Jeff Collins and Howard Selina.

I hope the above quote is widely used and precisely quoted because plagiarism is the same as suck-ass.

 

[Nile577]

I hope the above quote is widely used and precisely quoted because plagiarism is the same as suck-ass

Hmm, if you look, the whole section - from 'science' to 'measurment' - in my post, is in quote marks, with "To elucidate a subtlety in the Germanic language:" being used as an introduction to said long quote :\ May I gently suggest the problem lies with your comprehension?

In any case I shall edit the initial post to include source, which likely should have been done initially.

 

[Nile577]

I see you outlined Sein, but I did not locate any Heideggerian influenced reference to Dasein, or being-there.

Dasein is the ‘being-there’ of man. Heidegger elucidated Daseinic ontology but the 'being-there' for ontic entities is the eternal unfulfilled promise of his philosphy. Dasein exits in/alongside the world through a variety of relationships, one of which is the disclosure of ontic items as constituents of daseinic ontology in the being-to-hand of equipmental being. This occupies much of Being & Time. My previous post touches on Heidegger's relationship with art and its "being-there" disclosure of Earth in the realm of World. In synthesis: Heidegger may be read as holding that all 'being-there' is elucidated through Daseinic consciousness. Man is the shepherd of 'being' – thus (at least in his thought) it would be errant to propose objective determinism to this being, determinism being rather (for me) a specific disclosure of time (as the horizon of being) & a disclosure of daseinic ‘being-towards-death.’

 

[Nile577]

these terms outline the rational, scientific approach to discussing and understanding being.

No. In Heideggerian thought, 'ontical' being is the 'rational, scientific approach' and 'ontological' is the 'being-there' disclosed through the vector of 'care,' via which Dasein establishes its falleness as 'being-in-the-world.' 'Being-there' (in later Heidegger) is also revealed through artistic disclosure/poetic thought - again giving ontological meaning to things.

Interesting parallels between the Heideggerian ontic/ontological distinction and Sartre's "in-itself" and "for-itself" categories, no?