Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

free-magic vs determinism

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The irony of the term freewill is that it does not actually mean that the will is entirely free. When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself). Of course if the will was entirely free of all influences, then that means it generates decisions at random, which precludes the idea of self-control. However, the problem with saying that the will is influenced solely by the self is that,....the self doesn't really mean anything. What is that thing that produces our otherwise uninfluenced actions? I believe it's animistic magic that freewill supporters can't seem to explain. If you think it's not magic, and it is a legitimate thing, then what is it?

What causes human decisions (thus preventing them from being random) - yet is not itself subject to cause (which prevents the decisions from being determined)? And whatever this thing is that is not subject to cause - what prevents it from being random itself?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 11:40:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Another thing to point out is that it wasn't one's choice to be born, so any decisions made thereafter are made from a being that had no choice in the matter to make choices.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 11:43:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 11:40:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Another thing to point out is that it wasn't one's choice to be born, so any decisions made thereafter are made from a being that had no choice in the matter to make choices.

but does that mean you had no choice that you made certain choices
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 11:44:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 11:43:28 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:40:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Another thing to point out is that it wasn't one's choice to be born, so any decisions made thereafter are made from a being that had no choice in the matter to make choices.

but does that mean you had no choice that you made certain choices

It means that any 'freewill choice' you make was ultimately made from a being that had no choice to be able to make said choice.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 11:44:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
The irony of the term freewill is that it does not actually mean that the will is entirely free. When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself). Of course if the will was entirely free of all influences, then that means it generates decisions at random, which precludes the idea of self-control. However, the problem with saying that the will is influenced solely by the self is that,....the self doesn't really mean anything. What is that thing that produces our otherwise uninfluenced actions? I believe it's animistic magic that freewill supporters can't seem to explain. If you think it's not magic, and it is a legitimate thing, then what is it?

What causes human decisions (thus preventing them from being random) - yet is not itself subject to cause (which prevents the decisions from being determined)? And whatever this thing is that is not subject to cause - what prevents it from being random itself?

Yeppers.

Even if you have a Dualistic understanding of reality... it's tough to understand how one can separate decisions from natures.

You choose based upon what you care about... Whether you understand your thoughts and cares in the context of your brain and physical reality, or through the idea that you have a soul, decisions don't happen Willy Nilly.. there are Reasons why you choose to do what you do.

For example... God would not, Could not, choose to do evil.. This is b/c he's All-Good.

His nature is blah, blah, blah, Good... and so would never choose to do evil... His Very Nature necessarily determines his actions.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 12:21:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I think it's important to note that you're only addressing libertarian free-will. As far as that, I agree with you. I think it's one reason why libertarians so often appeal to the soul as evidence for their conception of free-will. I always ask how there can be anything in nature neither caused nor random, but I've never gotten anything close to an explanation even though it seems necessary for their position.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:25:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Free will is still limited by someone's "will". That doesn't mean it isn't free will.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:29:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:25:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Free will is still limited by someone's "will". That doesn't mean it isn't free will.

Yes it does. Said 'will' is determined by one's brain.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 12:21:06 PM, phantom wrote:
Well, I think it's important to note that you're only addressing libertarian free-will. As far as that, I agree with you. I think it's one reason why libertarians so often appeal to the soul as evidence for their conception of free-will. I always ask how there can be anything in nature neither caused nor random, but I've never gotten anything close to an explanation even though it seems necessary for their position.

Why do you call it 'libertarian freewill.' I'm a libertarian and I deny freewill.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:32:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:29:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:25:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Free will is still limited by someone's "will". That doesn't mean it isn't free will.

Yes it does. Said 'will' is determined by one's brain.

And the brain can act freely on it's will.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:40:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2013 12:21:06 PM, phantom wrote:
Well, I think it's important to note that you're only addressing libertarian free-will. As far as that, I agree with you. I think it's one reason why libertarians so often appeal to the soul as evidence for their conception of free-will. I always ask how there can be anything in nature neither caused nor random, but I've never gotten anything close to an explanation even though it seems necessary for their position.

Why do you call it 'libertarian freewill.' I'm a libertarian and I deny freewill.

Political libertarianism =/= philosophical libertarianism lol.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 3:56:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:32:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:29:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:25:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Free will is still limited by someone's "will". That doesn't mean it isn't free will.

Yes it does. Said 'will' is determined by one's brain.

And the brain can act freely on it's will.

How does it act freely?

By the normal, physically determined, ways..?
Or by Magic ways?


Determinists don't suggest that people's actions are coerced, just that their decisions and actions reflect and depend upon the given nature of the actor and the situation.

The nature of your brain determines how your brain works... and the brain acts in accord with it's nature.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 3:58:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it's worth noting that the coherent failure of free-will is inherently tied to the coherent failure of the self. The self is an abstract idea which exists only for practical purposes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 5:12:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 3:56:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:32:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:29:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:25:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Free will is still limited by someone's "will". That doesn't mean it isn't free will.

Yes it does. Said 'will' is determined by one's brain.

And the brain can act freely on it's will.

How does it act freely?

By the normal, physically determined, ways..?
Or by Magic ways?


Determinists don't suggest that people's actions are coerced, just that their decisions and actions reflect and depend upon the given nature of the actor and the situation.

The nature of your brain determines how your brain works... and the brain acts in accord with it's nature.

What method would you have free will if you had nothing to provide it? It all depends on the definition. Sure we might be certain to make our choices, but they still match my will. I can't somehow separate myself from my being and make choices.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 5:22:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 5:12:15 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Sure we might be certain to make our choices,
That's all the issue of Libertarian free will vs Determinism deals with.

but they still match my will. I can't somehow separate myself from my being and make choices.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 5:43:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
I would only agree to the extent that such a conception of free-will is predicated on a rather vague sense of entitlement to the self as a means or definition of individual autonomy, which is to presumably to be exercised at will. But that is not to say that I can automatically disagree but can only hold and regard your critique tentatively, given my lack of expertise. But....

However, your criticism is fairly convincing but might presume a conception of total, unbridled autonomy, subject and defined by a willfulness of action and of decision that is, and is, indeed, not referred to or subject in terms of its possessor. But, and pardon me if I speak in an area in which I have but little formal experience in, may I pose a question:

If we necessarily understand the definition of free will as pertaining to an autonomy of action, judgement, a selectivity, and not coerced deference to choices, in a sense a catering to the "self"*, then is it necessary to discuss it in terms of influences that move and direct our self-accorded will and volition, but rather our receptivity to them? Or am I perhaps referring to, and basing my query, on a much broader notion of free-will than what the discussion initially entailed, as an ideological or theoretical premise?

*Keep in mind that I do wholeheartedly agree, with a few, unintelligible reservations, that the "self" does little more than to serve practical purposes and means for segregating or distinguishing that which exercises or is granted a supposedly non-prescribed independence of will (in this context, I should say), as well as to add a touch of distinctiveness ,a somewhat arbitrarily-defined or delineated. [Further note: Unfortunately, since autonomy very much, as a concept, is oriented around the notion of self, I find that any discussion of the former without the latter to be difficult to immediately formulate.]
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 5:46:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 5:43:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
Or is my understanding of free will here is more or less idiosyncratic?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 5:47:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
The irony of the term freewill is that it does not actually mean that the will is entirely free. When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself). Of course if the will was entirely free of all influences, then that means it generates decisions at random, which precludes the idea of self-control. However, the problem with saying that the will is influenced solely by the self is that,....the self doesn't really mean anything. What is that thing that produces our otherwise uninfluenced actions? I believe it's animistic magic that freewill supporters can't seem to explain. If you think it's not magic, and it is a legitimate thing, then what is it?

What causes human decisions (thus preventing them from being random) - yet is not itself subject to cause (which prevents the decisions from being determined)? And whatever this thing is that is not subject to cause - what prevents it from being random itself?

Are you familiar with Hume's compatibilism? He lays it out quite nicely. Free will advocates and determinists are wasting time arguing over the mechanisms of an imaginary boundary between casual systems (self and non-self).

Only a fool would argue that free will is evidenced by a lack of causation in mental processes. We would be in the position of considering any coherent thought process "deterministic" simply because the ideas are related.

The determinist then attacks free will by claiming the imaginary boundary between self and non-self is extremely permeable, so causes outside the "self" influence results inside the "self."

The free will advocate responds that yes, the imaginary boundary is permeable, but as long as causal mechanisms within the "self" are operating, we would say that we experience "free will" in the sense of "I am doing x."

The apparent problems arise because humans very fluidly switch what they consider the "self" and "non-self."

EXAMPLE: It was found that if you open up someone's brain and stick electrodes in particular spot, then you can make someone raise their hand in a simlar manner to knee reflexes.

Patients almost unanimously report the sensation that "Something raised their hand" or that "their hand was raised." They would say that what has occurred is not an example of "free will."

Now, say you hook up the electrode and give the on/off switch to the person. When he presses the button, the stimulus makes his arm raise. The patients considered this "free will."

However, if the scientists put a three second lag between hitting the switch and raising the arm, once again "something else raised my hand."

Humans recognize free will not as complete independence from outside influence but as a boundary between activities that are or are not "claimed" as your own.

The ability of an individual to "claim" actions is just as coherent as claiming that a hurricane "caused" a house to be demolished even though each molecule of a hurricane is driven by independent electro-magnetic and gravitational forces.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 5:53:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 5:43:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
I would only agree to the extent that such a conception of free-will is predicated on a rather vague sense of entitlement to the self, as a means or definition of individual autonomy, which is to presumably to be exercised at will. But that is not to say that I can automatically disagree but can only hold and regard your critique tentatively, given my lack of expertise. But....

Amended. The original could pose some problems of ambiguity, depending on how you read and interpret my message.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 6:02:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 5:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
Humans recognize free will not as complete independence from outside influence but as a boundary between activities that are or are not "claimed" as your own.

I suppose, true. Inherent in the "orthodox" conception of free will is the concept of the self as it pertains to one's distinctive, self-accorded and self-descriptive, identity.

Thank you for raising another critical point, Wnope. It seems that 000ike's critique is only partially correct in the conclusion that it arrives at, but not in terms of the presupposed conception of free-will, as individual autonomy and independence and attentiveness to him/herself or the corollaries of such a notion.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 6:02:35 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Thank you for raising another critical point, Wnope. It seems that 000ike's critique is only correct in the conclusion that it arrives at, but not in terms of the presupposed conception of free-will, as individual autonomy and independence and attentiveness to him/herself or the corollaries of such a notion.

Amended.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 6:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself).

Who told you that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:00:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 6:56:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself).

Who told you that?

Because it would be incoherent as a term if free will had to some how be free from itself?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:11:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:00:52 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 6:56:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself).

Who told you that?

Because it would be incoherent as a term if free will had to some how be free from itself?

No, I'm asking him where he got this idea from. I only know of very few libertarian Free Willists (as it were) who hold that to truely make a free choice that will must be completely independent of all external influences. The rest do not hold to that. To take the minority position as if it was representative of LFW perplexes me. Hence the "who told you that?"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:11:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:52 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 6:56:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself).

Who told you that?

Because it would be incoherent as a term if free will had to some how be free from itself?

No, I'm asking him where he got this idea from. I only know of very few libertarian Free Willists (as it were) who hold that to truely make a free choice that will must be completely independent of all external influences. The rest do not hold to that. To take the minority position as if it was representative of LFW perplexes me. Hence the "who told you that?"

Yeah, it's weaker than OP's interpretation but still pretty strong. I think. I don't do much philosophy. Lol
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:41:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:13:38 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:11:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:52 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 6:56:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself).

Who told you that?

Because it would be incoherent as a term if free will had to some how be free from itself?

No, I'm asking him where he got this idea from. I only know of very few libertarian Free Willists (as it were) who hold that to truely make a free choice that will must be completely independent of all external influences. The rest do not hold to that. To take the minority position as if it was representative of LFW perplexes me. Hence the "who told you that?"

Yeah, it's weaker than OP's interpretation but still pretty strong. I think. I don't do much philosophy. Lol

Actually, 000ike's and the "Free Willists"' interpretations of free will are virtually identical.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 5:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
The irony of the term freewill is that it does not actually mean that the will is entirely free. When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself). Of course if the will was entirely free of all influences, then that means it generates decisions at random, which precludes the idea of self-control. However, the problem with saying that the will is influenced solely by the self is that,....the self doesn't really mean anything. What is that thing that produces our otherwise uninfluenced actions? I believe it's animistic magic that freewill supporters can't seem to explain. If you think it's not magic, and it is a legitimate thing, then what is it?

What causes human decisions (thus preventing them from being random) - yet is not itself subject to cause (which prevents the decisions from being determined)? And whatever this thing is that is not subject to cause - what prevents it from being random itself?


Are you familiar with Hume's compatibilism? He lays it out quite nicely. Free will advocates and determinists are wasting time arguing over the mechanisms of an imaginary boundary between casual systems (self and non-self).

Only a fool would argue that free will is evidenced by a lack of causation in mental processes. We would be in the position of considering any coherent thought process "deterministic" simply because the ideas are related.

The determinist then attacks free will by claiming the imaginary boundary between self and non-self is extremely permeable, so causes outside the "self" influence results inside the "self."

The free will advocate responds that yes, the imaginary boundary is permeable, but as long as causal mechanisms within the "self" are operating, we would say that we experience "free will" in the sense of "I am doing x."

The apparent problems arise because humans very fluidly switch what they consider the "self" and "non-self."

EXAMPLE: It was found that if you open up someone's brain and stick electrodes in particular spot, then you can make someone raise their hand in a simlar manner to knee reflexes.

Patients almost unanimously report the sensation that "Something raised their hand" or that "their hand was raised." They would say that what has occurred is not an example of "free will."

Now, say you hook up the electrode and give the on/off switch to the person. When he presses the button, the stimulus makes his arm raise. The patients considered this "free will."

However, if the scientists put a three second lag between hitting the switch and raising the arm, once again "something else raised my hand."

Humans recognize free will not as complete independence from outside influence but as a boundary between activities that are or are not "claimed" as your own.

The ability of an individual to "claim" actions is just as coherent as claiming that a hurricane "caused" a house to be demolished even though each molecule of a hurricane is driven by independent electro-magnetic and gravitational forces.

That doesn't really address the argument here. Whether or not you believe in total freewill or partial freewill, or whatever non-deterministic variation there is, there is still some freewill there to contend with, and so long as freewill exists in any manner, the questions in the OP must be addressed. If at some point in a compatibilistic or libertarian framework, the self has some input in the willing of the final decision, what is this thing that we are calling the self and what does it do to help will this decision? And if the actions committed by the self toward such an end are themselves uncaused, why aren't those actions considered random and hence lacking in control?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 8:05:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:53:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/13/2013 5:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/13/2013 11:34:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
The irony of the term freewill is that it does not actually mean that the will is entirely free. When you say that a human has freewill what you really mean is that he has a will that is free from every influence EXCEPT himself (or something within himself). Of course if the will was entirely free of all influences, then that means it generates decisions at random, which precludes the idea of self-control. However, the problem with saying that the will is influenced solely by the self is that,....the self doesn't really mean anything. What is that thing that produces our otherwise uninfluenced actions? I believe it's animistic magic that freewill supporters can't seem to explain. If you think it's not magic, and it is a legitimate thing, then what is it?

What causes human decisions (thus preventing them from being random) - yet is not itself subject to cause (which prevents the decisions from being determined)? And whatever this thing is that is not subject to cause - what prevents it from being random itself?


Are you familiar with Hume's compatibilism? He lays it out quite nicely. Free will advocates and determinists are wasting time arguing over the mechanisms of an imaginary boundary between casual systems (self and non-self).

Only a fool would argue that free will is evidenced by a lack of causation in mental processes. We would be in the position of considering any coherent thought process "deterministic" simply because the ideas are related.

The determinist then attacks free will by claiming the imaginary boundary between self and non-self is extremely permeable, so causes outside the "self" influence results inside the "self."

The free will advocate responds that yes, the imaginary boundary is permeable, but as long as causal mechanisms within the "self" are operating, we would say that we experience "free will" in the sense of "I am doing x."

The apparent problems arise because humans very fluidly switch what they consider the "self" and "non-self."

EXAMPLE: It was found that if you open up someone's brain and stick electrodes in particular spot, then you can make someone raise their hand in a simlar manner to knee reflexes.

Patients almost unanimously report the sensation that "Something raised their hand" or that "their hand was raised." They would say that what has occurred is not an example of "free will."

Now, say you hook up the electrode and give the on/off switch to the person. When he presses the button, the stimulus makes his arm raise. The patients considered this "free will."

However, if the scientists put a three second lag between hitting the switch and raising the arm, once again "something else raised my hand."

Humans recognize free will not as complete independence from outside influence but as a boundary between activities that are or are not "claimed" as your own.

The ability of an individual to "claim" actions is just as coherent as claiming that a hurricane "caused" a house to be demolished even though each molecule of a hurricane is driven by independent electro-magnetic and gravitational forces.

That doesn't really address the argument here. Whether or not you believe in total freewill or partial freewill, or whatever non-deterministic variation there is, there is still some freewill there to contend with, and so long as freewill exists in any manner, the questions in the OP must be addressed. If at some point in a compatibilistic or libertarian framework, the self has some input in the willing of the final decision, what is this thing that we are calling the self and what does it do to help will this decision? And if the actions committed by the self toward such an end are themselves uncaused, why aren't those actions considered random and hence lacking in control?

Just so I get where you're coming from, are you arguing that the self, as in a phenomologically identified "I," does not exist or that the self is epiphenomanal and does not exert influence independent of neural stimuli, firing, and output?