Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nature v Nurture excludes free will?

MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 10:30:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

I take it as Nature, Nurture, and choice. Couple of small surveys of twins found many startling similarities but also differences. this included twins raised in the same family and twins raised apart.

I think Nature is that which is our bodies. The hand we are dealt. These characteristics are pretty innate and predispose us to certain directions. They can't be changed just dealt with. (for instance a transgender is born female, changes to male, but still deals with the male body.)

Nurture or environment, I think is more behavioral and social. I think babies are born ready to adapt to a society more so then they are born ready to adapt to a climate. Again a strong agent and certainly predisposes a person to doing many things.

Choice I think can have a powerful affect. I think most people run through life on autopilot. And that is really what the brain seems great at doing. Making connections then summarizing the connections to be more efficient to go from point A to point B in thought.

I think it takes real work at breaking this automatic systems and to engage and strengthen the more conscious choice making systems.

Take for instance the first time you learned to drive. You were making a lot of conscious choices. But now after some years the choices you made previously were rewarded or punished and now you drive practically without thought. Choice in navigating the environment now transitioned to nurture.

This cognitive ability to make Choices can be reapplied to habitual things from nurture or nature. But I fear so many people are not empowered to use choice, but only held responsible for choice.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 11:37:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.

It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:24:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 11:37:03 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.

It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else.

It's true that free will itself is not deterministic, but that doesn't mean someone who believes in free will must believe that our actions are only a reflection of our will and not also a reflection of deterministic factors within us.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 2:51:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:24:03 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:37:03 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.

It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else.

It's true that free will itself is not deterministic, but that doesn't mean someone who believes in free will must believe that our actions are only a reflection of our will and not also a reflection of deterministic factors within us.

I think, by calling it "my action", it already implies that it follows from my will completely. I don't call being pushed or falling down, or something, "my action", because it's against my will. If you are saying that some things we call 'choices' are actually determined, and some aren't, how do we distinguish this? Can you give examples of some actions that are not determined?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 5:03:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
~ ~quote sdavio
"It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else. "

Free will says we are responsible for out actions, regardless of what influences causes us to make those actions.
It is not about influences, it is about outcomes, as I see it.

If there were no free will, I would argue, nature vs nurture would be a moot point.
"Did she do it because of her caretakers, or because of her genes?"
"It does not mater, there is no free will, she did not have a choice regardless. It was fate or destiny, she had no say in the matter."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:21:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

The issue is control:

"Nurture" categorizes aspects of human development that are within our control to change. Behavioral development would be archetypal of "nurture".

"Nature" categorizes aspects of human development that are NOT within our control to change. Currently that would be things like DNA, fetal development in the womb, etc.

As we develop technologically and gain more control over our environment, things once categorized as "nature" get placed in "nurture". An example of this would be debilitating diseases like malaria and cholera...at one point these were all aspects of "nature" but now it's a matter of administering the right treatment, which is "nurture". If you don't give a child a vaccine for, say, measles and that child subsequently dies from measles, whether or not that child died from natural causes ("nature") or parental negligence ("nurture") all depends upon the technological development of the society.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 10:55:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.
I only see 'free will' being about from this point forward, not history.
Free will means, regardless of what has happened, I am free to choose my action, it is not preordained.

If I choose to not eat peanut butter, because I am allergic to peanuts, it is still my choice.
If I choose to eat peanut butter because I am starving and it will save my life, it is still my choice.
Regardless of what brought me to this point, I am free to choose, and responsible for my actions, good, bad, or indifferent.

'Free will' is a foggy concept, and certainly others will disagree.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:32:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Free will as a concept does not work well with the implications of nature v nurture, because nature v nurture insinuates that there are things about us that we can't control, that affect how we act, whereas free will denotes complete control over one's actions.

Most people would settle for the idea that it's a bit of both, partially nature and nurture that shapes our views, and partially free will. The problem with this though is free will is not a concept of partiality, because, again, it denotes absolute control over one's actions.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 2:51:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:24:03 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:37:03 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.

It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else.

It's true that free will itself is not deterministic, but that doesn't mean someone who believes in free will must believe that our actions are only a reflection of our will and not also a reflection of deterministic factors within us.

I think, by calling it "my action", it already implies that it follows from my will completely. I don't call being pushed or falling down, or something, "my action", because it's against my will. If you are saying that some things we call 'choices' are actually determined, and some aren't, how do we distinguish this? Can you give examples of some actions that are not determined?

An action is simply something which you perceive as self-initiated. Someone who believes in free will simply asserts that this "initiation" is to some degree ours to choose, and not simply the product of deterministic forces. However, that doesn't mean they must believe that our actions are completely "up to us". After all, what we choose to do is strongly influenced by how our brains works, and we do not actively "choose" the structure of our brains. In other words, it is possible to believe that we are partly free. I.e., that a combination of our will and the laws of physics are responsible for our actions, allowing us to "get a word in edgewise".
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 1:59:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:32:10 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Free will as a concept does not work well with the implications of nature v nurture, because nature v nurture insinuates that there are things about us that we can't control, that affect how we act, whereas free will denotes complete control over one's actions.

Most people would settle for the idea that it's a bit of both, partially nature and nurture that shapes our views, and partially free will. The problem with this though is free will is not a concept of partiality, because, again, it denotes absolute control over one's actions.

Did you reach this conclusion from my statements? Because no one brought up the concept of control before I did...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:52:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 1:59:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:32:10 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Free will as a concept does not work well with the implications of nature v nurture, because nature v nurture insinuates that there are things about us that we can't control, that affect how we act, whereas free will denotes complete control over one's actions.

Most people would settle for the idea that it's a bit of both, partially nature and nurture that shapes our views, and partially free will. The problem with this though is free will is not a concept of partiality, because, again, it denotes absolute control over one's actions.

Did you reach this conclusion from my statements? Because no one brought up the concept of control before I did...

No I've thought about it before, and it crystallized during my ACT prep today. To be honest, I kinda skimmed what you said and didn't really comprehend it. Sorry :P I was in class at the time.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:45:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 3:52:44 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 1:59:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:32:10 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Free will as a concept does not work well with the implications of nature v nurture, because nature v nurture insinuates that there are things about us that we can't control, that affect how we act, whereas free will denotes complete control over one's actions.

Most people would settle for the idea that it's a bit of both, partially nature and nurture that shapes our views, and partially free will. The problem with this though is free will is not a concept of partiality, because, again, it denotes absolute control over one's actions.

Did you reach this conclusion from my statements? Because no one brought up the concept of control before I did...

No I've thought about it before, and it crystallized during my ACT prep today. To be honest, I kinda skimmed what you said and didn't really comprehend it. Sorry :P I was in class at the time.

No biggie, it was just weird...it looked like you had paraphrased what I said, even though it also seemed apparent you didn't read what I wrote, lol...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:49:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 5:03:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
~ ~quote sdavio
"It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else. "

Free will says we are responsible for out actions, regardless of what influences causes us to make those actions.
And why does free will posit we are to blame for our actions? Because they're within our control. What you're talking about isn't free will, it's free blame.
It is not about influences, it is about outcomes, as I see it.

If there were no free will, I would argue, nature vs nurture would be a moot point.
"Did she do it because of her caretakers, or because of her genes?"
"It does not mater, there is no free will, she did not have a choice regardless. It was fate or destiny, she had no say in the matter."
No, if free will does not exist, then nature v nurture becomes everything. Why did she do it? Was it in her nature? Or her nurture?
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 5:29:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:49:25 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 5:03:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
~ ~quote sdavio
"It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else. "

Free will says we are responsible for out actions, regardless of what influences causes us to make those actions.
And why does free will posit we are to blame for our actions? Because they're within our control. What you're talking about isn't free will, it's free blame.
It is not about influences, it is about outcomes, as I see it.

If there were no free will, I would argue, nature vs nurture would be a moot point.
"Did she do it because of her caretakers, or because of her genes?"
"It does not mater, there is no free will, she did not have a choice regardless. It was fate or destiny, she had no say in the matter."
No, if free will does not exist, then nature v nurture becomes everything. Why did she do it? Was it in her nature? Or her nurture?

Here is how I see it.
If there is no free will, there are no choices to be made.
All choices to be made, have been made, and it is up to the actors to play it out.
"No free will" means no choices.
The only relevance of 'Was it this, or was it that that caused...' might be for other actors, in future times. Someone may try to prevent some future actions by controlling the genetics or nurture of other individuals. I would not be supportive of this, because of the obvious, too many variables to believe they cold be controlled.

No free will, and whatever we might choose to do, we already chose, we just don't know it until it happens.
'Free will' is just another term, like so many, and might have many meanings.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:35:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
An action is simply something which you perceive as self-initiated. Someone who believes in free will simply asserts that this "initiation" is to some degree ours to choose, and not simply the product of deterministic forces. However, that doesn't mean they must believe that our actions are completely "up to us". After all, what we choose to do is strongly influenced by how our brains works, and we do not actively "choose" the structure of our brains. In other words, it is possible to believe that we are partly free. I.e., that a combination of our will and the laws of physics are responsible for our actions, allowing us to "get a word in edgewise".

So, you believe that a choice is partly determined, and partly not. Can you point to any aspect of an example action whatsoever which is not determined? Where does this freedom reside? This seems a lot like the whole "god of the gaps" thing: anything I point to you'll say, "no, that part is determined, but there are other things which are 'chosen' without determination".. But if you can't actually show where that is then nothing has been proven.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 9:26:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:35:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
An action is simply something which you perceive as self-initiated. Someone who believes in free will simply asserts that this "initiation" is to some degree ours to choose, and not simply the product of deterministic forces. However, that doesn't mean they must believe that our actions are completely "up to us". After all, what we choose to do is strongly influenced by how our brains works, and we do not actively "choose" the structure of our brains. In other words, it is possible to believe that we are partly free. I.e., that a combination of our will and the laws of physics are responsible for our actions, allowing us to "get a word in edgewise".

So, you believe that a choice is partly determined, and partly not. Can you point to any aspect of an example action whatsoever which is not determined? Where does this freedom reside? This seems a lot like the whole "god of the gaps" thing: anything I point to you'll say, "no, that part is determined, but there are other things which are 'chosen' without determination".. But if you can't actually show where that is then nothing has been proven.

I'm not attempting to prove anything. I'm just explaining that someone who believes in free will doesn't have to preclude "nature" when accounting for human behavior.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:52:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 9:40:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/28/2015 9:26:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:35:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
An action is simply something which you perceive as self-initiated. Someone who believes in free will simply asserts that this "initiation" is to some degree ours to choose, and not simply the product of deterministic forces. However, that doesn't mean they must believe that our actions are completely "up to us". After all, what we choose to do is strongly influenced by how our brains works, and we do not actively "choose" the structure of our brains. In other words, it is possible to believe that we are partly free. I.e., that a combination of our will and the laws of physics are responsible for our actions, allowing us to "get a word in edgewise".

So, you believe that a choice is partly determined, and partly not. Can you point to any aspect of an example action whatsoever which is not determined? Where does this freedom reside? This seems a lot like the whole "god of the gaps" thing: anything I point to you'll say, "no, that part is determined, but there are other things which are 'chosen' without determination".. But if you can't actually show where that is then nothing has been proven.

I'm not attempting to prove anything. I'm just explaining that someone who believes in free will doesn't have to preclude "nature" when accounting for human behavior.

But it's not even behavior if it's not my will causing it. Is the wind blowing through someone's hair "their behavior"?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 4:25:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Such either/or debates obscure the true nature of the reality being questioned, it isn't an either/or thing because they aren't mutually exclusive concepts, they are referential to each other, transactional in nature. What is divided in thought is not divided in nature, nature and nurture are "polar opposites", which is to say much more than they are opposed or separated; it is to say that they constitute a whole.

What we describing is our interaction with our environment, it's a transactional process being described, the idea that the interaction is a matter of "either" one of the terms "or" the other term in that transaction simply denies the reality of the interaction being described.

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play.

Well yeah, that's because the subject of the debate is nowhere in this line of questioning.

I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking.

Trying to describe a transaction by eliminating one or the other of the two components that constitute the transaction is a terrific example of contradictory thinking. It's like evaluating the equation 1+2=3 by claiming that the resulting 3 must be "either" 1 "or" 2, it doesn"t evaluate the equation, it simply denies the equation.

People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

No it doesn't; "only we make us act the way we do" is a meaningless statement, none of the "People who claim to believe in free will" is positing a meaningless statement like that. People who believe in free will are simply including the self-evident fact that we are conscious beings in the evaluation of our interaction with our environment.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

I "claim to believe in free will" and obviously I accept the self-evident experiential reality that consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it is purposeful by nature, which is to say that it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to a purely physical state.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 4:35:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 11:37:03 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.

It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else.

Oh please, you want to deny free will by declaring it is magic, really?

Did you study the free will debate by reading Harry Potter?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 4:41:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 2:51:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:24:03 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:37:03 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 11:10:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:07:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
It would seem to me that debates over nature vs nurture seek to answer which affect and shape us the most. Why do I act the way I do? Predominately because of my innate nature, or my experiences?

Nowhere in this line of questioning does free will come into play. I see this as a pretty good example of contradictory thinking. People who claim to believe in free will debating what makes us act the way we do, when free will posits that only we make us act the way we do.

But I'd love to hear what people think, obviously.

Someone can believe in free will and at the same believe that our actions are strongly influenced by the structure of our brains.

It's literally the opposite. Free will says that our choices are not influenced by the structure of our brains, nor by anything else.

It's true that free will itself is not deterministic, but that doesn't mean someone who believes in free will must believe that our actions are only a reflection of our will and not also a reflection of deterministic factors within us.

I think, by calling it "my action", it already implies that it follows from my will completely. I don't call being pushed or falling down, or something, "my action", because it's against my will. If you are saying that some things we call 'choices' are actually determined, and some aren't, how do we distinguish this? Can you give examples of some actions that are not determined?

If you want to deny free will by claiming determinism, then you will need to establish determinism as a fact, and that's a pretty tall order seeing as determinism has been a failed concept for over a hundred years.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 5:02:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:32:10 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Free will as a concept does not work well with the implications of nature v nurture, because nature v nurture insinuates that there are things about us that we can't control, that affect how we act, whereas free will denotes complete control over one's actions.

Most people would settle for the idea that it's a bit of both, partially nature and nurture that shapes our views, and partially free will. The problem with this though is free will is not a concept of partiality, because, again, it denotes absolute control over one's actions.

Nonsense, free will is simply a matter of whether I could have acted otherwise, which implies both the ability to select among alternatives and the ability to determine the means by which we will achieve goals. It has nothing to do with this na"ve concept of "absolute control" independent of any influences.

You kind of need to be talking about free will if you are going to actually engage in the free will debate, if you guys want to talk about magic, perhaps you should engage in a Harry Potter debate.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 5:44:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 9:26:55 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:35:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
An action is simply something which you perceive as self-initiated. Someone who believes in free will simply asserts that this "initiation" is to some degree ours to choose, and not simply the product of deterministic forces. However, that doesn't mean they must believe that our actions are completely "up to us". After all, what we choose to do is strongly influenced by how our brains works, and we do not actively "choose" the structure of our brains. In other words, it is possible to believe that we are partly free. I.e., that a combination of our will and the laws of physics are responsible for our actions, allowing us to "get a word in edgewise".

So, you believe that a choice is partly determined, and partly not.

So you believe that this post was determined by a causal chain that extends back billions of years, it doesn't actually represent an awareness of the post you are responding to or your conscious thoughts about that post. It just happened, really?

Can you point to any aspect of an example action whatsoever which is not determined?

He can certainly presume that you are a conscious being that used written language to express your thoughts rather than a mindless automaton typing words that were already determined fourteen billion years ago.

Where does this freedom reside?

It resides in the content of the consciousness that I can only presume you possess.

This seems a lot like the whole "god of the gaps" thing:

This seems a lot like the whole "emergent property of the gaps" thing, maybe your post was determined billions of years ago, but nevertheless, it sure gives the appearance that you are a conscious being that believes in magic.

anything I point to you'll say, "no, that part is determined, but there are other things which are 'chosen' without determination".. But if you can't actually show where that is then nothing has been proven.

If you can' t actually accept that you are a conscious being that chose to express your thoughts when you wrote this post, then nothing has been said.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 6:28:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 4:41:18 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
If you want to deny free will by claiming determinism, then you will need to establish determinism as a fact, and that's a pretty tall order seeing as determinism has been a failed concept for over a hundred years.

You've based all of your responses on the assumption that I am denying free will by asserting determinism, which is not my intention at all. In fact I deny free will, as well as determinism, and the dichotomy itself. That aside, you've not properly responded to any of my points. If you believe that each person has something called a "will" which cannot be causally tied to a preceding factor, this is a positive claim which requires proof.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 7:14:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 6:28:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2015 4:41:18 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
If you want to deny free will by claiming determinism, then you will need to establish determinism as a fact, and that's a pretty tall order seeing as determinism has been a failed concept for over a hundred years.

You've based all of your responses on the assumption that I am denying free will by asserting determinism, which is not my intention at all. In fact I deny free will, as well as determinism, and the dichotomy itself. That aside, you've not properly responded to any of my points. If you believe that each person has something called a "will" which cannot be causally tied to a preceding factor, this is a positive claim which requires proof.

<eats popcorn>
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 7:40:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 7:14:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/29/2015 6:28:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2015 4:41:18 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
If you want to deny free will by claiming determinism, then you will need to establish determinism as a fact, and that's a pretty tall order seeing as determinism has been a failed concept for over a hundred years.

You've based all of your responses on the assumption that I am denying free will by asserting determinism, which is not my intention at all. In fact I deny free will, as well as determinism, and the dichotomy itself. That aside, you've not properly responded to any of my points. If you believe that each person has something called a "will" which cannot be causally tied to a preceding factor, this is a positive claim which requires proof.

<eats popcorn>

Lol :). At least someone's interested I guess lol.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 8:16:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
free will is simply a matter of whether I could have acted otherwise, which implies both the ability to select among alternatives
By saying you could have selected a different option given the same circumstances, you are saying that the influences do not guide your actions.

You kind of need to be talking about free will if you are going to actually engage in the free will debate, if you guys want to talk about magic, perhaps you should engage in a Harry Potter debate.
If you want to engage in a free will debate, we can do that assh*le.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 10:19:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 6:28:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2015 4:41:18 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
If you want to deny free will by claiming determinism, then you will need to establish determinism as a fact, and that's a pretty tall order seeing as determinism has been a failed concept for over a hundred years.

You've based all of your responses on the assumption that I am denying free will by asserting determinism, which is not my intention at all.

I'm responding to your statements "Can you give examples of some actions that are not determined?" and "Can you point to any aspect of an example action whatsoever which is not determined?", it sure appears that you are arguing for determinism.

In fact I deny free will, as well as determinism, and the dichotomy itself.

On what basis do you deny free will then?

That aside, you've not properly responded to any of my points. If you believe that each person has something called a "will" which cannot be causally tied to a preceding factor, this is a positive claim which requires proof.

You guys keep trying to define free will out of existence by invoking magic, as I've already said, I believe each person has something commonly referred to as free will, which is to say that we can foresee the consequences of our actions, deliberate, and act in accordance with those preceding conclusions. The attribute of free will means there is not a single determined response to a desire; there are multiple ways in which I can freely choose to respond to desires and other influences.

The denial of free will necessarily denies purposeful action or human freedom and the associated responsibility for our actions. The argument is refuted by the fact that human beings are subject to both physical causality and the aforementioned teleological causality, which means we are free and responsible causal agents, we can change our conduct for reasons that are not included in the purely physical causation which by definition, does not include intent, values and purpose.

If you want, I'd certainly be glad to formally debate it with you.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 10:29:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 8:16:09 AM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
free will is simply a matter of whether I could have acted otherwise, which implies both the ability to select among alternatives
By saying you could have selected a different option given the same circumstances, you are saying that the influences do not guide your actions.

Nope, I'm saying influences do not determine our actions, that there are multiple ways in which I can freely choose to respond to circumstances.

You kind of need to be talking about free will if you are going to actually engage in the free will debate, if you guys want to talk about magic, perhaps you should engage in a Harry Potter debate.
If you want to engage in a free will debate, we can do that assh*le.

Great, that's precisely what I was trying to goad somebody into :)

How about the resolution is "Human Beings Possess Free Will" and I'll be Pro, or "Human Beings Do Not Possess Free Will" and you be Pro?

Let me know what you want the resolution to be and I'll set it up and send a challenge.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater