Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are the senses indicative of no freewill?

Hiu
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.
imperialchimp
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:05:53 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I'd say they're based on our senses, not determined. I could touch cold water and say it was hot. If it was determined by my senses, I would have said the water is cold.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-
imperialchimp
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:12:37 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

is this really free will? I was pretty sure that free will is the ability to make choices on what you can do, not just whatever you want to do. For example, free will doesn't mean i can chose to grow wings and fly (until it actually becomes possible).
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-
keithprosser
Posts: 1,996
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 9:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
It would be nice sometimes to have control over our sense of pain! Imagine being able to dial-down a tooth-ache from an overwhelming debilitating agony to, say, a dull ache that you must attend to, but not quite as bad!

But we don't seem to have even that power. The power of the mind can be over-stated.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 10:38:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand you or everyone else missed the boat. You're saying our actions are determined by what we percieve with our senses. I prefer pizza to salad because of my taste buds. If a had no taste buds I would have no preference one way or the other. The same applies to each of our other senses. I tend to agree with you.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 11:09:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 10:38:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
I prefer pizza to salad because of my taste buds. If a had no taste buds I would have no preference one way or the other. The same applies to each of our other senses. I tend to agree with you.

Gay men prefer other men, straight men prefer woman. Which sense do you suggest creates that preference?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 11:31:30 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 11:09:36 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/21/2016 10:38:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
I prefer pizza to salad because of my taste buds. If a had no taste buds I would have no preference one way or the other. The same applies to each of our other senses. I tend to agree with you.

Gay men prefer other men, straight men prefer woman. Which sense do you suggest creates that preference?

If you couldn't see, hear, smell, taste or feel, how could you tell a man from a woman?
Besides, being gay or straight is not a matter of choice.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 11:43:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 11:31:30 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you couldn't see, hear, smell, taste or feel, how could you tell a man from a woman?

Good point, we can indeed not perceive the universe if we don't have any senses to perceive it with.

Besides, being gay or straight is not a matter of choice.

Neither is the preference of the foods you like. Some people love chocolate, and other people hate it. Even though we experience the universe through our senses, it is also quite clear that there is something else within us that determines how we perceive what we receive with our senses. As such, even though the senses can influence our free will, they do not determine by themselves what we will eventually choose because of our preferences.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 11:53:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 11:43:06 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/21/2016 11:31:30 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you couldn't see, hear, smell, taste or feel, how could you tell a man from a woman?

Good point, we can indeed not perceive the universe if we don't have any senses to perceive it with.

Besides, being gay or straight is not a matter of choice.

Neither is the preference of the foods you like. Some people love chocolate, and other people hate it. Even though we experience the universe through our senses, it is also quite clear that there is something else within us that determines how we perceive what we receive with our senses. As such, even though the senses can influence our free will, they do not determine by themselves what we will eventually choose because of our preferences.

You missing the point. Without senses, we would have no preferences. Chocolate and dog poo would look, smell, taste, sound and feel the same. You can't deny that our actions are determined by our senses because without senses we would do nothing. We would not feel hunger, pain, fear or any other motivation to do anything.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 12:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 11:53:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 11:43:06 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/21/2016 11:31:30 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you couldn't see, hear, smell, taste or feel, how could you tell a man from a woman?

Good point, we can indeed not perceive the universe if we don't have any senses to perceive it with.

Besides, being gay or straight is not a matter of choice.

Neither is the preference of the foods you like. Some people love chocolate, and other people hate it. Even though we experience the universe through our senses, it is also quite clear that there is something else within us that determines how we perceive what we receive with our senses. As such, even though the senses can influence our free will, they do not determine by themselves what we will eventually choose because of our preferences.

You missing the point. Without senses, we would have no preferences. Chocolate and dog poo would look, smell, taste, sound and feel the same. You can't deny that our actions are determined by our senses because without senses we would do nothing. We would not feel hunger, pain, fear or any other motivation to do anything.

Very true but in the same token, our preferences are not determined by our senses. If our preferences were determined by our senses, then there would be no such thing as Homosexuality or Heterosexuality which you already stated is no choice.

We must perceive the universe with our senses to interact with the universe yes, but the manner in which we interact with the universe is different for each person.

It you let 10 people look at the same photograph, take the photograph away and ask them to describe what they have seen in the photograph, you get ten different answers even though it was only one photograph.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 12:20:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 8:12:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

is this really free will? I was pretty sure that free will is the ability to make choices on what you can do, not just whatever you want to do. For example, free will doesn't mean i can chose to grow wings and fly (until it actually becomes possible).

it is indicative of no freewill, it's the title of the thread
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 12:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

What you seem to be getting at would be a empiricist "blank slate" theory of cognition, which I would not regard as a sufficiently justified, or even coherent, view in epistemology. The mind, by acting, does more than merely "sense" - and therefore the aggregate of all the sense data taken in throughout a person's life could not even in principle add up to a metric which could determine positive actions or even rationally constructed thought. This is not to ascribe any supernatural capacity to the mind, but rather it's to recognize that there are certain innate capacities and tendencies for action inherited by evolution which are more than a mere concatenation of passive instances of sensing.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 12:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:01:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/21/2016 11:53:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 11:43:06 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 9/21/2016 11:31:30 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If you couldn't see, hear, smell, taste or feel, how could you tell a man from a woman?

Good point, we can indeed not perceive the universe if we don't have any senses to perceive it with.

Besides, being gay or straight is not a matter of choice.

Neither is the preference of the foods you like. Some people love chocolate, and other people hate it. Even though we experience the universe through our senses, it is also quite clear that there is something else within us that determines how we perceive what we receive with our senses. As such, even though the senses can influence our free will, they do not determine by themselves what we will eventually choose because of our preferences.

You missing the point. Without senses, we would have no preferences. Chocolate and dog poo would look, smell, taste, sound and feel the same. You can't deny that our actions are determined by our senses because without senses we would do nothing. We would not feel hunger, pain, fear or any other motivation to do anything.

Very true but in the same token, our preferences are not determined by our senses. If our preferences were determined by our senses, then there would be no such thing as Homosexuality or Heterosexuality which you already stated is no choice.

We must perceive the universe with our senses to interact with the universe yes, but the manner in which we interact with the universe is different for each person.

It you let 10 people look at the same photograph, take the photograph away and ask them to describe what they have seen in the photograph, you get ten different answers even though it was only one photograph.

I have a theory that pheromones play a part in determining sexual preference. If so, then our senses do in fact determine our sexual preference.

As for your photograph, if those 10 people were all blind I believe you would get very similar answers.
No doubt, interpretation of sensory perceptions plays a part. Bob and Ben may not interpret things the same way, but Bob will always experience blue as blue.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 1:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:35:19 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I have a theory that pheromones play a part in determining sexual preference. If so, then our senses do in fact determine our sexual preference.

As for your photograph, if those 10 people were all blind I believe you would get very similar answers.
No doubt, interpretation of sensory perceptions plays a part. Bob and Ben may not interpret things the same way, but Bob will always experience blue as blue.

It's one thing to say that senses "play a part" - nobody would deny that. The very first sentence of Kant's COPR (which is the point at which philosophy overcame the kind of naive "blank slate" picture being advocated in this thread) admits that, of course, all cognition must start with intuition - that is, essentially with sensation. Sensations are like the "raw materials" upon which cognition works, but the assumption being challenged here is that the sensations themselves can be enough to determine completely any instance of mental action, and in fact it is in Hume himself, who was an empiricist who took these "blank slate" views to their logical conclusion, that this is revealed as impossible. The basic operation of any mental work is inference, and while inference works upon the data of sensation, it is vastly underdetermined by said data, and must supply its own rules for that pile of data to become anything more than an aggregate.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 1:35:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 1:25:21 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:35:19 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I have a theory that pheromones play a part in determining sexual preference. If so, then our senses do in fact determine our sexual preference.

As for your photograph, if those 10 people were all blind I believe you would get very similar answers.
No doubt, interpretation of sensory perceptions plays a part. Bob and Ben may not interpret things the same way, but Bob will always experience blue as blue.

It's one thing to say that senses "play a part" - nobody would deny that. The very first sentence of Kant's COPR (which is the point at which philosophy overcame the kind of naive "blank slate" picture being advocated in this thread) admits that, of course, all cognition must start with intuition - that is, essentially with sensation. Sensations are like the "raw materials" upon which cognition works, but the assumption being challenged here is that the sensations themselves can be enough to determine completely any instance of mental action, and in fact it is in Hume himself, who was an empiricist who took these "blank slate" views to their logical conclusion, that this is revealed as impossible. The basic operation of any mental work is inference, and while inference works upon the data of sensation, it is vastly underdetermined by said data, and must supply its own rules for that pile of data to become anything more than an aggregate.

Would you do anything if you had no sensations?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 1:37:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 1:35:08 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 1:25:21 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:35:19 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I have a theory that pheromones play a part in determining sexual preference. If so, then our senses do in fact determine our sexual preference.

As for your photograph, if those 10 people were all blind I believe you would get very similar answers.
No doubt, interpretation of sensory perceptions plays a part. Bob and Ben may not interpret things the same way, but Bob will always experience blue as blue.

It's one thing to say that senses "play a part" - nobody would deny that. The very first sentence of Kant's COPR (which is the point at which philosophy overcame the kind of naive "blank slate" picture being advocated in this thread) admits that, of course, all cognition must start with intuition - that is, essentially with sensation. Sensations are like the "raw materials" upon which cognition works, but the assumption being challenged here is that the sensations themselves can be enough to determine completely any instance of mental action, and in fact it is in Hume himself, who was an empiricist who took these "blank slate" views to their logical conclusion, that this is revealed as impossible. The basic operation of any mental work is inference, and while inference works upon the data of sensation, it is vastly underdetermined by said data, and must supply its own rules for that pile of data to become anything more than an aggregate.

Would you do anything if you had no sensations?

No, and neither would I if there was no sun, but I am not about to formulate a reductive theory of cognition where all thought is tied to the movements of the sun.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Hiu
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:39:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

Right. However let me throw a spin on it, what about suicide? Does depression that the mind "feels" determines whether one wants to stop breathing or is it the environment that one experiences depression? Hmmm
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 6:47:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:39:42 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

Right. However let me throw a spin on it, what about suicide? Does depression that the mind "feels" determines whether one wants to stop breathing or is it the environment that one experiences depression? Hmmm

The environment results in the depression. Secondly, nobody wants to stop breathing. They want the pain to stop. Illogical as it may sound, people commit suicide to feel better.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
This argument is a logical fallacy of the form not-x, not-y, therefore x, y. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that our actions rely on the existence of our senses that the content of our sensations determines exactly what we do. To assume that is to beg the only question at issue and thus render the argument completely unnecessary. There's a distinction to be made between a necessary and sufficient condition of our behavior. Obviously, the existence of our brain is at the very least a necessary condition of our behavior; without it there is no behavior to speak of. But is the brain's structure sufficient to account for all of our actions? Is there more than one way we can act under the same environmental conditions? The viability of free will depends on the answer to that question.
Hiu
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 10:38:29 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand you or everyone else missed the boat. You're saying our actions are determined by what we percieve with our senses. I prefer pizza to salad because of my taste buds. If a had no taste buds I would have no preference one way or the other. The same applies to each of our other senses. I tend to agree with you.

Right. I mean, the senses determine our actions such as the example you've placed such as preferring pizza to salad. Perhaps if you lacked taste buds perhaps you wouldn't have a preference per say, but if you retained smell, you may in fact retain a preference based on how the two smelled even though lacked taste buds. I guess ultimately I'm leaning towards the idea that our senses ultimately control our will.
Hiu
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:25:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:28:01 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

What you seem to be getting at would be a empiricist "blank slate" theory of cognition, which I would not regard as a sufficiently justified, or even coherent, view in epistemology. The mind, by acting, does more than merely "sense" - and therefore the aggregate of all the sense data taken in throughout a person's life could not even in principle add up to a metric which could determine positive actions or even rationally constructed thought. This is not to ascribe any supernatural capacity to the mind, but rather it's to recognize that there are certain innate capacities and tendencies for action inherited by evolution which are more than a mere concatenation of passive instances of sensing.

Interesting. How would you account for addiction to the above post you've made. Surely there is a lack of will to NOT be addicted.
Hiu
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:29:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 6:47:36 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:39:42 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

Right. However let me throw a spin on it, what about suicide? Does depression that the mind "feels" determines whether one wants to stop breathing or is it the environment that one experiences depression? Hmmm

The environment results in the depression. Secondly, nobody wants to stop breathing. They want the pain to stop. Illogical as it may sound, people commit suicide to feel better.

Interesting. Let me pick your brain for a moment and forgive me for pulling away from the subject matter for a moment but as you've said, people commit suicide to stop pain (from depression) yet, there is a sense of awareness that the result of ending their pain is to stop breathing and ultimately die. But coming back to the subject matter it seems that there is a lack of freewill. It seems that the self, in addition to the environment determines my actions.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:31:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:29:18 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:47:36 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 6:39:42 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

Right. However let me throw a spin on it, what about suicide? Does depression that the mind "feels" determines whether one wants to stop breathing or is it the environment that one experiences depression? Hmmm

The environment results in the depression. Secondly, nobody wants to stop breathing. They want the pain to stop. Illogical as it may sound, people commit suicide to feel better.

Interesting. Let me pick your brain for a moment and forgive me for pulling away from the subject matter for a moment but as you've said, people commit suicide to stop pain (from depression) yet, there is a sense of awareness that the result of ending their pain is to stop breathing and ultimately die. But coming back to the subject matter it seems that there is a lack of freewill. It seems that the self, in addition to the environment determines my actions.

Lol you ask some difficult questions. But I like that.
They would rather die than live with the pain. They see no way to escape it. You see, your two questions are linked. The motivation for all sentient beings is to be more happy. The only time conflict arises within us is when short term happiness leads to long term decrease in happiness. This is where emotional maturity comes in. Unfortunately it's a factor of nurture and does not develope naturally. Environment factors play a major part in how emotionally mature we become. It's not a matter of choice. So it seems the environment determines who we are. It's actually a lot more complicated than that because we have 3 independent brains. The logical, the emotional and the limbic/reptilian brain. The latter takes control during life threatening situations and when it takes over, logic goes out the window. The other 2 brains are continuously fighting for control. It's this conflict which we interpret as consciousness.
Well that's how I think of it.
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:01:13 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I doubt they are indicative of free will. Losing your senses wouldn't disable you from acting with intention. But do you think people act with any intention in the first place? Unless you understand free will differently.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:57:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I believe in terms of rejecting what our senses tell us, the saying mind over matter goes a long way, but only so far.

The thing is, if our senses rob us of free will, wouldn't illusions be a liberation from this? It's quite weird.

Perhaps I'm reading into this too much. The question does say indicative of free will, not the cause of our lack thereof. For that question, the answer is more or less how you frame free will in the first place. I'd personally say that just because we have impulses, doesn't mean we are slaves to them, the reason they are that powerful is because of the abundance of information we have because of our senses, and the cause and effect sense we develop because of it.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Hiu
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:01:13 AM, difference wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I doubt they are indicative of free will. Losing your senses wouldn't disable you from acting with intention. But do you think people act with any intention in the first place? Unless you understand free will differently.

Well, I believe people do act with intent but I also believe that the intent, is directly influenced by the senses. For example, I work for a living to sustain my way of life, and to buy myself sustenance. I know that I have the will to stop working and go homeless and lose all responsibility. But then again, based on my senses I know if I go homeless I'll be exposed to the elements, I'll starve and I may experience considerable displeasure. I know some homeless people enjoy their freedoms, but they also have a hard time obtaining sustenance and housing away from the elements. All in all, I think we tend to do things based on our senses and to sustain some sort of pleasurable way of life.
imperialchimp
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 3:23:41 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:20:40 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 8:12:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 9/21/2016 1:33:09 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

I would say yes, anything you can't turn on and off you have no freewill over, like breathing, there's no freewill over those type things.

is this really free will? I was pretty sure that free will is the ability to make choices on what you can do, not just whatever you want to do. For example, free will doesn't mean i can chose to grow wings and fly (until it actually becomes possible).

it is indicative of no freewill, it's the title of the thread

i would say that it isn't indicative of no free will either. Senses are pretty irrelevant to free will.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-
imperialchimp
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 3:32:03 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 12:42:10 AM, Hiu wrote:
By "senses" I'm referring to of course the 5 senses such as touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. Although we can live without one or more, it seems our actions whether direct or indirect are determinant by our senses. I suppose this may be an argument by an empiricist however I wonder what everyone thinks.

what about the other senses like pressure or itch?

what if i was itchy but decided not to scratch the itchy area? This is certainly possible, but this would also mean that one of my senses didn't determine a choice.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-