Do you believe in free will? - Page 3

Go Back   Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards > NBA Discussion > The Podium

View Poll Results: Does free will exist
Yes 20 80.00%
No 5 20.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2009, 04:35 PM   #41 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,964
Representing:
Default

while i agree on almost all of that lx, i still think we both have free will. no matter how many determinants go into your process of deciding, you still make that decision in the end. you say yes or no or maybe, and it's not a simple calculation. it's an incredibly complex one that yields many results. you choose between those results.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 04:36 PM   #42 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,964
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
you missed my point.

sigh.

I hate slumming in this part of the Messageboard........

what's the point that i missed?
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 04:49 PM   #43 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,286
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
If Wiki says it, it is real!

HA!

I use Wiki because I have free will.
I think this actually sums things up for me pretty well. There is no certainty in Wiki, but I can choose to accept or not accept what is there and go forward.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 07:34 PM   #44 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,098
Representing:
Default

I am not claiming that free will is eliminated by logic or anything like that. Indeed, we take all sorts of action that ranges from wise to simply stupid, from logical deduction to emotional intuition.

However, the choices you make are completely shaped by what has happened in the past. Suppose you want to "choose" what to drink: in your mind, you've chosen beer over milk, tea, juice, etc. Suppose you choose beer knowing that it is probably the worst choice you can make, but your "free will" allows you to choose it anyways.

But why did you really choose the beer? No matter what argument you form, that choice was based completely on past experiences. It appears that a causal link can be drawn backwards from any event, even if there is a large constellation of causes that converge on a single effect. In short, anything can be viewed through the lens as necessary and not contingent if we understood all factors completely. That is quite an arduous task, mind you, so we instead operate under the premise that we must have just made that choice of our own volition.

And to re-iterate my earlier scientific point, if our cognition of making a choice comes after the choice has already been made, that seems, to me, to significantly undermine the argument that we are making conscious decisions, without which we could not possibly be operating under free will.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 08:06 PM   #45 (permalink)
enjoying the RealGM courtesy of RF

Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 839
Representing:
Default

There is free will. Yopur writing on this forum out of free will. You eat out of free will. Every thing you do is free will, even dying and being born as you have the oppurtunity to run away from your parents or stay and you choose how you die depending on your lifestyle.
rapsdabest is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 08:11 PM   #46 (permalink)
enjoying the RealGM courtesy of RF

Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 839
Representing:
Default

Free will is what caused Raptorsbestfan 2 be elcted MOM!
rapsdabest is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 08:44 PM   #47 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,098
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapsdabest View Post
There is free will. Yopur writing on this forum out of free will. You eat out of free will. Every thing you do is free will, even dying and being born as you have the oppurtunity to run away from your parents or stay and you choose how you die depending on your lifestyle.
No offense, but I don't think you really understand the argument.

Take your example of eating. You posit that we eat out of free will. I posit that we eat because we want to live. We want to live because we have enjoyed life in the past. We enjoyed life because of an event or events that occurred. Those events occurred because of something else. You can carry on this chain ad nauseam. In short, everything you do now is formed by everything that has happened before. The appearance of free will occurs from thinking that you could have done something other than that which you did do.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 03:02 AM   #48 (permalink)
kicking himself for being so emotionally invested in the Roller-coaster Raptors

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,536
Representing:
Default

Yes I do believe in free will; it is in fact a foundational pillar of any society (and not just modern ones). Laws are codified based on the assumption that people have choices. To negate free will entirely makes all laws pointless.

Can you predict people's actions, many times with a high degree of accuracy? Absolutely! But that doesn't disprove free will.

----------
[TANGENT:]

Of course I also believe we're all just collections of atoms and molecules, and on a smaller level subatomic particles moving around in a (metaphoric) cloud of probabilities. But since my sense perception doesn't deal in quarks and electron spin, I stick to what I can see with my own eyes for the most part .

[END OF TANGENT]
--------

Furthermore, I also believe that our actions are very strongly influenced by our experience and environment, our culture and society at large. When we talk of "free will" people will naturally choose options that are familiar to them, that use their prior knowledge, life experience, expectations, etc.

When I'm choosing what to eat for breakfast, for example, I'll consider options among the oat meal in my cabinet, a smoothie, some sort of egg/bagel/cheese/bacon combination, etc. I'll probably have a coffee, too. I won't consider eating my car's tires, grass, a shrub, random flowers in the garden or a bird's shit, even though they may very well be tasty or nutritious. I'll generally choose among the same limited options that are familiar to me, or at least familiar to someone whose opinion I trust.

You can play the semantics card and say "well if you're willing to eat only from a finite list of menu items for breakfast and not choose from absolutely anything then you're not truly free", but that is not how I define "free will." Free will means we make choices based on what we believe to be acceptable alternatives, not that we can do absolutely anything and everything at any given moment.

Last edited by BballWatcher; 09-15-2009 at 03:16 AM.
BballWatcher is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 03:15 AM   #49 (permalink)
kicking himself for being so emotionally invested in the Roller-coaster Raptors

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,536
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post

Take your example of eating. You posit that we eat out of free will. I posit that we eat because we want to live. We want to live because we have enjoyed life in the past.
We don't just want to live because we've enjoyed life in the past; we are all biologically programmed with a set of urges: to eat when we're hungry, to survive, to reproduce and to seek out pleasure (your point).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
We enjoyed life because of an event or events that occurred. Those events occurred because of something else. You can carry on this chain ad nauseam. In short, everything you do now is formed by everything that has happened before. The appearance of free will occurs from thinking that you could have done something other than that which you did do.
That's called the causal chain, and physicists often use the causal chain argument to support the concept of quantum physics and mechanics.

In a sense, I do agree with you, that prior events do, necessarily cause future events (the causal chain). Nevertheless, what we call "free will" is basically another term for what we define as choice. Whether or not the choice is truly "free" for me is irrelevant; we believe that there is choice because the alternatives are to believe that life is either completely chaotic, or completely determined.

"Free will" best approximates the reality in my opinion. Life is predictable enough for me to not be chaotic and unpredictable enough to not be completely determined.

-----------

Another big reason I believe in free will is that to be a complete determinist basically leads to fatalism - where you believe that everything is already determined, so nothing really matters.

Last edited by BballWatcher; 09-15-2009 at 03:21 AM.
BballWatcher is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 09:31 AM   #50 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by •LX• View Post
I think this actually sums things up for me pretty well. There is no certainty in Wiki, but I can choose to accept or not accept what is there and go forward.
And remember, whether or not you think you're right, or you think you're wrong...... you're right!
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2009, 09:33 AM   #51 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator

 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,291
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
And remember, whether or not you think you're right, or you think you're wrong...... you're right!
Even when I'm not the starter I will always be the starter.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2009, 08:08 PM   #52 (permalink)
Truth

Member
 
Cory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 257
Representing:
Default

I said I was going to pick this debate up again, but I have no motivation to go through these arguments again, and it hardly makes sense to me to spend the effort anyways. But I enjoyed reading some of the contributions, thanks everyone.
Cory is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2009, 09:18 PM   #53 (permalink)
enjoying having the keys to destiny

perusing ancient database
 
ClingRap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The far side of the Universe.
Posts: 2,025
Representing:
Default

I think there's a third way here and it's a bit of both and a lot of something else. i don't think there's really any sort of free will without there first being some sort of self-reflexive engagement with responsibility. too often the free will proponents use some of its liberalist aura and ideology to do some unethical things. the other side of it has always been structuralism. people argue that there is no free will because our way of making sense, negotiating power, making meaning is bound up in a language game governed by the need to make things intelligible to communicate. you've got to follow the structure that everyone consents to in order to get somewhere...

i guess my thinking on this has been influenced by spending a lot of time lately around the improv music scene in toronto, while also reading a lot about fractal geometry and physics. nothing is entirely free. nothing is entirely predetermined. if there is free will then how do we account for the spontaneity that comes out of just being alive. how do things emerge beyond us? the same questions can be asked of structuralism. i think a really interesting way to think about this question is too approach it as improvisation being everything that we do, from breathing, to getting fat, to making a salad, to dying. we're always doing things in response to something, and i think a question like, "does free will exist?", assumes this response as being already there. everything we do is in the understanding that without otherness, without being a respondee, without listening, then there really isn't any point in forming relationships, and so why the fuck are we here? i think that's why things get so fucked up sometimes. people act on this free will impulse and forget the reverberations of their acts. affect.
ClingRap is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 09:46 AM   #54 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,467
Representing:
Default

BUMP.

Time for a long ass post. This might go nowhere, but I couldn't sleep last night so I started reading this thread and decided (of fufilled my destiny) to chim in. Having said that, I am genuinely intrigued when Atheists argue in favour of free will. Discussing this issue with religious people is pointless because, to varying degrees, they believe in the supernatural, substance dualism and host of other garbage that falls outside the realm of science and concrete observation (even on a speculative level). Thus it is a waste of time to debate this issue with them, when they are inclined to fall back on "...spirits"..."we have a soul"... "God done did it. Don'tcha know?."

Trane (and any other atheist who voted yes to the question) probably doesn't believe in the supernatural. And those are the people my post is directed to, if they pay any attention to it. My intention is not to single you out, trane, but given that you are the only one who self indentified as an atheist, I am going to address my post to mostly your comments/position. But if anyone else reading this is an atheist who believes in free will, I'd be interested to know your stance. It's early in the morning, which is a bad time for making this kind of post, so I apologize if it gets a bit convoluted.

Predertermination is not dependent upon a creator. Quite the opposite. In fact, a lot of the scholars who are open to predeterminism are actually atheists. Dawkins, to my knowledge, dodges this question quite a bit when in public, since he knows it is problematic for most people. Without God, it is very difficult to salvage free will (yes, I know God granting free will has other logical contradictions). This is why defining "free will" is so important. Trane, your post implies that predeterminism of thoughts equates to a creator, but that is simply wrong. Although Cory was not doing a good job of articulating the position, he was making an argument similar to that made by leading neuroscientists. Furthermore, Legia raised the VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE of the role that consciousness plays in choice, yet you appeared to brush it aside. Many leading scientists and phillosophers think the notion of "free will" is problematic. They don't entirely dismiss it, but they don't accept it as a certainty. Some atheist scientists and philosophers make the case for a naturalistic type of predeterminism. The universe is comprised of knowable laws, right?. And I know you accept this, trane, because I've seen you object when a couple of the postmodernists were taking their nonesense too far (remember the boiling water discussion from a while back?). Why is this important? Because it relates to substance dualism. For an atheist such as yourself, "free will" must be based in the natural world, if it is consistent with your overall world view. No need for an athiest to believe in the supernatural.

If your thoughts are processes of your brain, and your brain obeys scientific laws, then your thought processes are governed by laws (neurology, chemistry...etc). Based on past experience, most people are totally going to miss the point of that statement, but I hope you'll grasp it. So, if you're saying things are not predetermined, then you need to account for how free will defies those laws.

On a related note, you also must account for how free will takes place in relation to consciousness. That is, you need to confront the VERY IMPORTANT point raised by Ligeia:

Quote:
And to re-iterate my earlier scientific point, if our cognition of making a choice comes after the choice has already been made, that seems, to me, to significantly undermine the argument that we are making conscious decisions, without which we could not possibly be operating under free will.
Trane (and other atheists), what is the role of conciousness in free will? And building upon the earlier point I raised, how does conciousness defy or obey natural laws while providing free will? To have free will, it would seem that choices must defy natural laws, or else they can be understood and predicted, given the right amount of information. The key part of that last sentence is, GIVEN THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. If you don't understand the argument you are probably going to say "you can't read thoughts". But that's both untrue AND not essential for predeterminism. What's essential is that GIVEN THE RIGHT AMOUNT of information, the thought processes of the brain could be understood and predicted, since it is governed by laws, just like the temp necessary to boil water can be predicted given the right amount of information regarding the relationship between pressure and temperature.

Cory and Legia are on to something, at least based on what we currently know about the brain, which any honest person would still concede is not nearly enough. That goes for people on both sides of this issue. Legia is being the most honest here, since he/she said that this is a question that he/she is constantly grappling with. Trane, like Cory, you appear to have far too much certainty on this issue. Legia, and Cory to a lesser extent, are backed by some very interesting studies. There is empirical, replicable evidence that shows how the brain activity responsible for making short term choices kicks in before you're even conscious of the decision. Your brain is making decisions without you being conscious of it. That is proven. How do you reconcile that with your notion of free will? See, those short term decisions not only happen before you're conscious, they are ALSO predictable. They are governed by laws. An MRI can determine what you'll chose when given two choices. Does this entirely eliminate the notion of free will? Of course not. There are other types of long term thought processes. But recent advances in neuroscience raise SERIOUS questions about the ways in which LAWS govern our thought processes. It makes the notion of free will problematic. Our simple, basic thoughts are coded processes that can be revealed by an MRI of the brain. Not all of them (at least yet) but some. Computers can read our thought processes, too, which further suggests laws governing decision making. We are hooking computers into the brains of people with spinal cord injuries. Like the MRI stuff I discussed, the simple thought of wanting to move a cursor on a computer screen is coded in the brain. That code, once understood by a computer, can be read, and said computer will move the cursor everytime the connected person's brain replicates that exact same thought process. That shit was on 60 minutes. It's real. No joke. We may not be able to view our more complex thought processes yet, and make predictions about them, but that may simply be because we haven't developed the technology, not because we have some sort of free will that is so complicated it defies natural laws. If you're going to sustain the case for "free will" (which may or may not be possible) you need to have more tangible evidence regarding the role of consciousness in long, elaborate decision making. How does that fit with a naturalistic view of the universe? We simply don't know enough yet. And if you take consciousness out of the equation and try to suggest it's not necessary...well... at that point, you'd basically just be redifining free will. I mean, as Legia tried to point out, how is it free will if you're not conscious of the decision the instant it is made?

Now, before you go misunderstanding my point about laws, I am NOT neglecting the role of environment. I fully concede that numerous factors influence thought processes. Genetics, environment/experience, consumed substances...etc...all influence thought processes. But again, complexity does NOT automatically negate predetermination of thought processes. Since the brain is material and subject to natural laws, it MIGHT be possible to understand the weight and influence of all of these factors in the development and function of the thought processes of a person's brain. Again, although it could have been articulated better, Cory's analogy with computations is not automatically wrong. It was just expressed poorly. Some neuroscientists view the brain as a computer or a network of several computers. You have hardware (genetics), and loads of different software (environment/expereince/chemicals). The hardware and the software interacts in some cases. In other cases, new software overides the hardware or causes it to malfunction (somewhat subjective, but I think we can agree certain outcomes are very bad for health so it's a malfunction). Sometimes certain hardware proves so useful for obtaining positive outcomes that it completely replaces old software. And it can go the other way, sometimes new software is downloaded and turns out to be a major bust, but you don't find out until it has been used. All of this takes place without you even being conscious of it. There are numerous examples through the psychological literature. I haven't even touched on the way meds can be used to manipulate brain functions, which can play a huge role in long term decision making. Again, that relates to how laws govern thought processes. The manipulation through meds demonstrates that.

Now bearing all this in mind, I am going to go back and look at some comments from your exchange with Cory and Legia. Trane, you said this to Cory:
Quote:
cory - so your point is that every choice is just a rational/emotional computation and thus not a choice at all.

that's complete nonsense. here are a couple of reasons why:

1. humans make irrational choices all the time. not only is logic not consistently applied, but sometimes it's disregarded entirely. you can also have multiple logical answers to a question or multiple illogical answers to a question, and people pick and choose from those possibilities all the time. simply stating that it is logic that guides us doesn't mean there is only one answer, and it doesn't mean that humans actually apply it in the first place.
2. some choices are beyond logic. how does one rationlaize sophie's choice, for instance? human's rely more on emotion than logic, and emotion can give all kinds of responses. further, emotional responses are not predetermined. i may change my mind, i may be unsure of something when i proceed, and i may have conflicting emotions that don't necessarily work in a coherent world view. you can't compute that as there is no balancing factor. with emotions, we keep things separate in our minds and don't rationalize them. in the end, i may choose to act emotionally or logically or irrationally as might suit my whim. people do this all the time. these are all choices.

we compute, but it doesn't always give clear answers, and in every computation comes a whole bunch of initial choices about what sorts of things we wish to include in that computation in the first place. to write that off as a lack of free will is to completely misunderstand both what choice and logic actually are.
In regards to #1, people may be irrational based on previous experiences, lack of formal education, genetic ability, as well as other factors. Cory should have phrased things differently, but your points do NOT negate predeterminism and prove free will. Again, this isn't about the fact that multiple possibilites could exist, it's about the fact that given the right amount of information, you'll know what a given person does. Your argument does not dismiss the notion that a person's thought's might be predertimined by unconscious thought processes. Cory was dumb for saying logic predetermines things, since there are multiple logical answers to questions. But your response proves nothing for free will. If playing devil's advocate, I would say (and I'm sure Cory probably meant this) the brain will choose based on a confluence of computations, all of which seemed the most logical to the brain based on a laundry list of factors. Is this hugely complex? We don't necessarily know how complex it is for the unconcious aspects of our brain. Some factors are eliminated in milli seconds. But, unless free will defies natural laws, it would be possible to predict the outcome. And it would be predictable through an understanding of the natural laws governing the thought processes, as I discussed earlier in the post. If we could understand the laws governing the coding of decicions in thought processes, we could POSSIBLY use technology to see them before they are consciously realized. Again, that's assuming all decisions precede consciousness. I concede we don't know enough about the role of consciousness. But to suggest free will is a given, is just as problematic as Cory's position. Both of you seem too certain, given the limitations of our current technology.

As for #2, you seem to be removing emotions from the individual. It's possible, though, that I am just misunderstanding you. I mean, Sophie's choice can be a computation. That example does not negate predeterminism. In a healthy individual, the biological maternal instinct may be the most important in the heirarchy of initial computations, hence the reluctance to let either child go. Not making a decision, is a decision. Uncertainty is a decision. Something in the laws governing that processes are compelling the individual to avoid making the decison. It's like a flight response. Flight responses are found in animals far, far less complex than a human. How far exactly do you want to take free will? Once forced to confront the fact that a decision must be made, other aspects of the brain become involved and a new computation containing new information takes place. This doesn't mean that the decision was made through consciousness. In fact, in such a stressful situation, the mind may shut down and the person literally becomes a biological robot. I really don't like the Sophie's choice example as a means of proving free will. It doesn't work. Like the studies refered to earlier (that Legia initially brought up) brain activity may initiate the decision before sophie is even conscious. You'd need to establish that emotion somehow changes brain activity in quick decisions, at least to the point that it delays it and incorporates consciousness more. Two possibilities exist, but the choice could be made by the laws governing Sophie's thought processes. And to be clear, again, when I refer to laws, I am taking into account environment and past experience interacting with the genetic composition of the brain. Those variables shape thought processes and decision making (like the software analogy). It's different for all people, though. Predeterminism does not mean all decisions and outcomes will be the same when people face similar decisions. That's a massive misinterpretation of the position. Not saying you're doing it, but you should keep that in mind. Individuality doesn't dissapear. Again, I digress.

Let's look at another response to Cory. You said:
Quote:
in all of your [Cory] responses to me, you somehow missed the most crucial piece. in any computation there is the moment of choice that pre-exists it. the moment that you choose which factors to include in that computation. if you want to boil it down to an emotional/logical computation (which i also disagree with for reasons stated above) how do you factor in the way in which the boundaries of that calculation are determined? is any human capable of understanding the totality of complex situations? we choose what to include and what not to inlcude in the calculation. and then, as i have argued, we choose again when we inevitably come up against competing possibilities and outcomes in which we may or may not act rationally/irrationally/towards our happiness/towards someone else's happiness.
Okay, that's only part of the post, but this is dragging out, so I'm just going to address the part quoted. From the determinist perspective (not saying I entirely agree with it), your views are flawed and you still haven't proven free will. Again, you don't know for sure that your consciousness is responsible for the boundaries involved in the computation. Your consciousness may simply be a "delayed feed" of what has already been worked out by your brain. Since you're the claimsmaker, the ownus would fall on you to demonstrate that you are consciously deciding where the boundaries are drawn. Also, what point are you trying to make by asking if any human could understand the totality of complex situations? Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but this type of statement is confusing. See, individuality isn't lost with naturalistic predeterminism. People are still different from one another. They have different "hardware" and "software." So it's not like there is only one outcome possible. Choices are still made. The question really is, are you fucking aware (through consciousness) of the decision the instant it is made? And just because you're working out a long term decision over days and days, that doesn't mean you automatically have free will. It would seem likely in those scenarios, but it's not automatic. See, you could be doing computations you're unaware of, that later manifest in your consciousness, giving you the illusion that your consciousness is doing original thinking, when really it's just a "delayed feed" of other thought processes that played out earlier, and now you're becoming aware of what's going on.

You said:
Quote:
no human being is a completely rational actor that can break any decision down to a surefire answer every time. as soon as one person has to make a decision based on inputs or equal outcomes you have free will. i don't see how you can deny that.
Not sure I understand you. I can see two ways of interpreting this. Of course no rational actor can break any decision down to a surefire answer. That would require predicting the future. Predeterminism is not about the choice maker accurately predicting the best outcome. It's about the choices being governed by physical laws that the choice maker is a part of. And even if two choices seem equally desirable, I doubt any choices can be quantified in a numerical score, so for each individual there will probably be a prefereable outcome they pursue. Take Sophie's choice: two equally negative outcomes, the process of the flight response kicks in and the choice is initially avoided, but then once the choice is forced, the individual makes a computation on variables specific to the brain's conditions. If it's predetermined, it doesn't have to be the best choice. The brain just has to perceive it as the best under given conditions. And regret does not prove free will, either. It just means the brain is adapting to a faulty computation or malfunction in software. Poor software was downloaded (experience or faulty knowledge consumed), bad consequences occured, the brain had the applicable software/hardware necessary to recognize bad consequences, and thus adapted. Evolution is about adaption. Free will is not necessary for many of the things you're describing. Natural selection can chose favourable traits like regret. The ability to recognize the bad consequences would be a result of past conditions governing the brain (genetic selections for the hardware), so it again comes back to predeterminism (at least that's what they'd argue).

Then you said this to Legia in reference to two points; one being a question about "why you make decisions" and the other being a reference to a proven FACT that there is a delayed feed in our conscious awareness of at least some decisions (and possibly more than we are currently aware of).
Quote:
that's the same point that cory made, and it's a misdirection at best. we don't make choices in isolation. we make them after careful or imperfect consideration of all the elements we chose to include in that consideration. and those choices are based on previous careful or imperfect decions as to what constituted the parameters of that decsion. and those choices were based on the ones before that.

and none of them were perfect, logical emotional, or otherwsie. they were the product of imperfect human consideration. and all mixed together they become a continuum of a person's thought, each one of them making the web more complex and creating all sorts of irreconcilable beliefs that ultimately go into the pot.

it is in this context, with this background, that each choice is mulled over. and when we decide on something it is usually out of a number of equal possibilities.

this is the point at which we choose, at which we have free will. and we do it constantly, in many different circumstances.

and rather than narrowing the spectrum, as cory seems to have suggested, each choice makes it more possible that the next one is free, because at the root of it all, no person is smart enough to understand the totality and guarantee that they have no ultimately unreconcilable beliefs. if we all had a perfectly coherent worldview then our choices could be said to derive from a patterned computation, but since we don't there are irreconcilable variables that will always make that computation flawed and erratic.

hence the need to choose.

hence free will.
Okay, that particular post sounds great and I want it to be true, but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't fully address Ligeia's comments. See, Cory never mentioned consciousness once. Not once. So, when you refered to Ligeia's points as a "misdirection at best", you must have been refering to the question about "why you make those choices." However, you never say the word conciousness. That's why I'm conflicted about your response. It sounds smart, and it conforms with what my consciousness appears to experience, but is it really how the physical laws of decision making actually work? Free will isn't even needed for me to type this post and formulate my response. The computations could all be playing out seconds before I ever decide what to write. Brain activity operates that fast. Is that really free will? See, you seem to be dodging the concsiouness aspect of Ligeia's comment. Given that Cory's name came up again at the end of the post, it's possible that you're just addressing that one point about "why you think that way" while neglecting the implications of the role of consciouness during this whole entire discussion. Why have you not mentioned concsiousness once? I don't want to make assumptions about your position. I just don't get why you haven't addressed the possibility of a "delayed feed." Maybe it's a shortcoming in the knowledge of the people entertaining the predeterminist position, but if it is, you should provide a more empirical basis for why it doesn't matter. I mean, are you drawing on quantum mechanics? If so, that's also problematic for free will, at least if you're going to express the same degree of certainty about it.

I'm going to post some videos in here to better illustrate some of the points about the mechanistic view of decision making/naturalistic predetermination. Sorry for the convoluted post. Insomnia equals = blah, blah, blah from armchair

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 12-18-2009 at 10:13 AM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 10:21 AM   #55 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

^Holy shite.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 11:34 AM   #56 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Member
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,245
Representing:
Default

Well, I choose to have free will. If you don't that's fine, that's your choice.
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 04:35 PM   #57 (permalink)
is tired of all the Jose hating on this forum! sigh...

Senior Member
 
takman_777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NorthWestern Ontario
Posts: 1,804
Representing:
Default

well done Armchair! i will have to read that again but i like the tone! well stated...
takman_777 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 04:46 PM   #58 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,467
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by takman_777 View Post
well done Armchair! i will have to read that again but i like the tone! well stated...
Well, I have a hunch that you might not like it the second time around. Although I don't agree with all of the points I was outlining, I was arguing that life may follow a type of predeterminism. I just saw some of your comments in another thread. You clearly believe in "free will." Like I said, you might be dissapointed if you read it closely.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 04:50 PM   #59 (permalink)
is tired of all the Jose hating on this forum! sigh...

Senior Member
 
takman_777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NorthWestern Ontario
Posts: 1,804
Representing:
Default fair enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
Well, I have a hunch that you might not like it the second time around. Although I don't agree with all of the points I was outlining, I was arguing that life may follow a type of predeterminism. I just saw some of your comments in another thread. You clearly believe in "free will." Like I said, you might be dissapointed if you read it closely.
i didn't say i liked it or agreed with it, i am impressed by the body of work itself! that has to be commended without qualification!
takman_777 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 05:15 PM   #60 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,467
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolfpoet View Post
Well, I choose to have free will. If you don't that's fine, that's your choice.
Lonewolfpoet, are you an atheist? Or are you saying that you "choose" to excercise a "free will" that you believe God gave you? Just seeking clarification.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FREE COLANGELO!!!! arsonal Toronto Raptors 327 07-30-2009 03:08 PM
What If You Were A Free Agent dfunkie1 Entertainment Lounge 35 04-04-2009 07:50 PM
Free Raptor Tix!! Raptorman Toronto Raptors 28 03-23-2009 11:58 PM
Nash to be set free? Windex Toronto Raptors 20 03-15-2009 09:28 AM
Free Roko LX Toronto Raptors 52 03-11-2009 01:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24