 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do we have free will? |
| No, our fates are impersonally controlled |
|
23% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, our fates are controlled by a personal force |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, we are free to choose |
|
58% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7895
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
The fallacy comes in when people, when philosophizing about free will, visualize the future as being concrete (which it is once it's happened, but not before), then think, "See? I HAVE to make that choice!" |
Well, the future IS concrete if all facts can be known about it. |
Again, it's a matter of human perspective.
Logically, the future is either concrete or it is not, regardless of human perspective.
Thus, the branch of study you're dealing with here is actually Psychology more than Philosophy or Science,
in that you're discussing how theoretical knowledge of the future affects the human brain, and the human will.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.)
Last edited by Ragtime on Fri May 23, 2008 10:49 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 2148
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's not a matter of human perspective. It's a matter of four dimensional physics. If we live in a continuum of time and space the future does not pop out of a top hat like a magical rabbit. It is obviously not perceptible since information cannot travel backwards in time but the continuous continuities of cause and effect indicate the future as a reality. That we cannot perceive it does not indicate its absence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ouinon wrote: |
I think that it continues to be believed in because it has been promoted in Western society for over 1400 years now, in fact western society is practically based on it.
And to most people their motivations for choosing and doing things are so hazy, unidentified, unexamined, they do not realise how every thought follows from another thought which arises from a physical event ( chemistry, neurological, hormonal, environmental, etc) and so on.
Belief in free will is almost inevitable in most people in the west who do not try over years to work out why they do stuff, and/or are brought up not to question free-will or much in general. People "feel" their "will" as an independent entity the same way people used to "feel"/hear their "unconscious" influences speaking to them as if they were the voices of ancestors, gods or spirits.
I think that in the West it can/could be actually scary to think it doesn't exist, because our social/cultural conditioning suggests/tells us loudly and repeatedly, that life without it would be a kind of horror story. We would be like werewolves, vampires, zombies, ( even bodysnatched or alien-invaded) , helpless in the grip of drives and impulses, etc, of "instructions" alien to our "actual" human nature.
As if our body ( and/or the world) is a monster out to get us. We have to resist it. As if we only exist "by virtue" of resisting. The result of duality. Feelings of alienation/separation from the universe. ( Gluten, to get onto one of my hobby horses!   And off again quickly. )
In the East, I believe, the attitude is/used to be ( until they started eating lots of gluten too!) somewhat different. |
Well, if it is in the East, then it is a "used to be" as in India and Hong Kong, both societies have clear majorities of people who believe in free will and believe human responsibility depends upon it. The US believes more strongly that responsibility needs free will, but actually India believed more strongly than the US that we had free will. I posted about this a bit earlier.
| Quote: |
PS: AG, about the poll. I still haven't voted because I don't understand what the impersonal and personal forces are in the two cases of no free will.  Sorry; I'm obviously being obtuse here.  |
Impersonal would be that the universe is set up by forces that don't care, such as in a world without a deity, or a world where the deity or fating force is not anthropocentric. Personal is a universe that has a deity or some mysterious force of fate that is centered on people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Odin wrote: |
EXACTLY. You can see this in the assertion that if there is no free will there can be no responsibility (a notion that obviously stems from Judeo-Christian notions). This can also be seen the the concept of "philosophers' zombies." |
Well.... the issue is that this is found across cultures Odin, blaming Christianity does not seem correct, unless both India and Hong Kong are very Christian, which neither of them are. Really though, Christianity does not unequivocally support free will, some atheists argue that the New Testament goes out of its way to show that there is no free will, and some Calvinistic theologians such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon have denied that free will is a concept, and Peter Abelard argued that God could only pick one option and thus promoted a compatibilist view of free will, which Liebniz also adopted. Actually, I think free will really seemed to rise to prominence in the Enlightenment as noted with Erasmus, an enlightenment liberal theologian who wrote on the supremacy of the human free will, a notion that was attacked by Martin Luther, which we all know as the prominant figure in Protestantism, in his book "The Bondage of the Will". Heck, if you look at Calvinism, a dominant theological view in Christianity, and the one upheld by the Puritans, you will note that there is really very little room for a libertarian free will.
I think the issue that you really dislike is dualism, which can be blamed on Christianity more unequivocally, and not necessarily free will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of human perspective.
Logically, the future is either concrete or it is not, regardless of human perspective.
Thus, the branch of study you're dealing with here is actually Psychology more than Philosophy or Science,
in that you're discussing how theoretical knowledge of the future affects the human brain, and the human will. |
No, it really isn't at all. It has nothing to do with human perspective AT ALL as the argument is about the future. If you'll note, the argument stated nothing about psychology AT ALL, it was very much a metaphysical argument. The human will ISN'T a topic for psychology either! Heck, that too is a topic for metaphysics as noted by the philosophy in metaphysics called "libertarianism" which talks about the libertarian free will that we are discussing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Which makes it non-fallacious?
Um, how many philisophical arguments can you think of that are most probably fallacious?
Too many to count, of course!
Remember, Philosophy is the search for truth, not the truth itself.
Once an actual truth is found, it's called Fact, Science, or other similar terms. |
Well, the big issue is that dismissing it as a fallacy is to give it too little respect. A philosophical argument may contain a fallacy, however, better minds than you or I have discussed the idea backwards and forwards. Really though, I doubt it is a fallacy though, and of course I would not take kindly to a person attacking an idea I am promoting as merely a fallacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3548
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was Augustine in the fifth century AD who first clearly described what is known as free-will.
And yes, teachings/attitudes ( ref: free will, the function of the individual etc) have changed dramatically in the East in the last 100 years.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ouinon wrote: | It was Augustine in the fifth century AD who first clearly described what is known as free-will.
And yes, teachings/attitudes have changed dramatically in the East in the last 100 years.
|
I am not surprised that he did that. He is a well-noted thinker.
Well, they would have had to change very dramatically for something as undiscussed as free will to be so strongly believed over there. I mean, the theory that the west came over and changed everything is believable, but without dramatic and fundamental cultural change it is hard to consider it plausible as few people are really taught free will outside of religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7895
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of human perspective.
Logically, the future is either concrete or it is not, regardless of human perspective.
Thus, the branch of study you're dealing with here is actually Psychology more than Philosophy or Science,
in that you're discussing how theoretical knowledge of the future affects the human brain, and the human will. |
No, it really isn't at all. It has nothing to do with human perspective AT ALL as the argument is about the future.
|
This entire discussion has to do with human perspective!
It has to do with whether we think we have free will,
or whether all the letters I'm now typing to form this sentence
were randomly determined by some unknown force outside of my
own determinations.  Do you think that's likely?
And if you think I don't have free will, then you shouldn't become emotional
and use all those exclamation points in frustration with me, because doing
so is wasted energy and foolishness if I'm a mere computer program,
and if nothing I'm going to type will change regardless of your objections.
Hence, you yourself validate free will.
All legal systems throughout history and the present day are based on free will,
as they offer punishments for willing against the law.
It's pretty obvious that we have free will,
and what would be the point of us not having it?
To mindlessly fulfill the future?
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
If you'll note, the argument stated nothing about psychology AT ALL, it was very much a metaphysical argument.
|
I'm offering the opinion that you're dealing with Psychology, in that
you are contrasting a difference in two merely human perspectives:
that of the present, and that of a theoretical future,
and in that you are concluding that that contrast proves something.
It does not, other than that human perspective is both flawed and limited.
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
The human will ISN'T a topic for psychology either! |
Yes, it is:
| www.Merriam-Webster.com wrote: |
Psychology:
1: the science of mind and behavior
|
You can't study human behavior without looking into the role that human will plays in that behavior,
nor can you help someone change their destructive behavior by having sessions in which the
psychologist tells you how to motivate yourself in the right direction.
Psychologists (and anyone else who wants to help you) will often tell you that you have a choice
to make in order to make your future brighter.
If you quit school, that is your choice.
I understand that you're trying to remove the responsibility for all our actions,
but it's not that easy.
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
Heck, that too is a topic for metaphysics as noted by the philosophy in metaphysics called "libertarianism" which talks about the libertarian free will that we are discussing. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive. No one field has "the rights to" the study of human will.
Hence, why I said you're talking about "Psychology more than Philosophy and Science".
It's a relative thing.
In conclusion, the evidence for free will is overwhelming.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.)
Last edited by Ragtime on Fri May 23, 2008 2:19 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3548
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | ouinon wrote: | | I still haven't voted because I don't understand what the impersonal and personal forces are in the two cases of no free will. Sorry; I'm obviously being obtuse here. |
Impersonal would be that the universe is set up by forces that don't care, such as in a world without a deity, or a world where the deity or fating force is not anthropocentric. Personal is a universe that has a deity or some mysterious force of fate that is centered on people. |
That is interesting distinction because I think that belief in god does not necessarily declare the existence of god, only belief in god.
The choices in the poll seem to mean that belief in the absolute non-existence of free will is on a similar plane to belief in god. Now I have understood the question/options I discover that I really can't vote "correctly". Which I didn't anticipate.
I cannot put my belief in god in the same framework as my firm belief that free will empirically does not exist. That's it, that's the difficulty for me with the poll options; it's the mixing of empirical and non-e.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
tharn
Toucan
Joined: Apr 22, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 255
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to admit to being a soft determinist through and through. Specifically, I suspect the two are compatible - though I don't have an inkling how I'd go about supporting that suspicion.
My impression of choice is that if you KNOW all the variables - every neuron, every stimulus - or you're looking back in retrospect - then the decision is Known, like opening up Schrödinger's box. The cat is either dead or not, and the result can be traced back to its causes.
But if you're in the mix, being the agent of the decision, not knowing the variables, free will applies. The box is closed, and the cat may be alive or dead and for whatever reason. This type of free will may be an illusion, but it is a pretty darn convincing illusion! Perhaps we were destined to discuss this matter from the start, which makes me wonder whether I am really responsible for my reply.
(And yes, I know that Schrödinger's cat is usually referred to when discussing quantum dynamics. I'm afraid I didn't have a more appropriate example in mind!)
_________________
Sainte atha ma u Hrair, kan zyhlante hray u vahra ma hyaones.
My heart has joined the Thousand, for my friend stopped running today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
This entire discussion has to do with human perspective!
It has to do with whether we think we have free will,
or whether all the letters I'm now typing to form this sentence
were randomly determined by some unknown force outside of my
own determinations. Do you think that's likely?
And if you think I don't have free will, then you shouldn't become emotional
and use all those exclamation points in frustration with me, because doing
so is wasted energy and foolishness if I'm a mere computer program,
and if nothing I'm going to type will change regardless of your objections.
Hence, you yourself validate free will. |
No, it has to do with metaphysics. There is no knowledge to base free will or it's lack upon, so there is no data for perspective, only metaphysical ideas. If you are so general with "human perspective" then yes, everything is human perspective, but that is just nonsensical in it's broadness. Um.... Ragtime, if you are caused by external things, and *I* am an external thing, then if I act upon you, then I can expect change. The idea that you are determined by external events, and therefore external events cannot determine you, is just fallacious, it is a blatant contradiction within your argument. The fact of the matter is that I am treating you as a something that is causal, if you were acausal and thus had free will, then my efforts would be in vain.
| Quote: | All legal systems throughout history and the present day are based on free will,
as they offer punishments for willing against the law.
It's pretty obvious that we have free will,
and what would be the point of us not having it?
To mindlessly fulfill the future? |
Umm.... and what of utilitarian and economic arguments in the legal system? The offering of punishment can be expressed in the idea of causality or of harming those with natures that are disliked. Ragtime, arguing on the basis of human meaning is not an argument. It is sort of like disputing nuclear physics on ethical grounds, saying that particles cannot be so dangerous because goodness would not allow it.
| Quote: |
I'm offering the opinion that you're dealing with Psychology, in that
you are contrasting a difference in two merely human perspectives:
that of the present, and that of a theoretical future,
and in that you are concluding that that contrast proves something.
It does not, other than that human perspective is both flawed and limited. |
Yeah, and your opinion is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
The issue of free will or no free will is beyond the scope of psychology as it is a philosophical question. There is overlap, but a neurobiologist is not going to test for this concept. Not only that, but the entire issue of the future IS metaphysics. Psychology only deals with mental states, not ideas or anything like that. Well, Ragtime, if differences between time t and t+n are false, then why not consider all of time false? After all, if we substitute t-1 for t and thus go into the past, then we say that the past is the same as the future. The past is concrete, so if the past and the future are the same, then the future is also concrete. You really aren't making a very good argument though, as you are refusing to address the metaphysics involved with this question and instead assuming it away as psychology rather than a different metaphysical view that must be refuted.
| Quote: |
Yes, it is:
[quote="www.Merriam-Webster.com"]
Psychology:
1: the science of mind and behavior
|
Yeah, SCIENCE, there is no scientific test for free will, Ragtime, therefore it is beyond the scope of psychology and falls into the non-science of metaphysics.
| Quote: | You can't study human behavior without looking into the role that human will plays in that behavior,
nor can you help someone change their destructive behavior by having sessions in which the
psychologist tells you how to motivate yourself in the right direction.
Psychologists (and anyone else who wants to help you) will often tell you that you have a choice
to make in order to make your future brighter.
If you quit school, that is your choice. |
Umm..... you can. There are behavioralist theories that emphasize us as having learned behavior, with it's proponent B F Skinner once denying the existence of mental states and there are neuropsychological methods. Not only that, but cognitivism, which focuses on the human brain, does not necessarily accept the existence of a human free will either as it relies on the scientific method to come to it's conclusions. Well, psychologists saying "you have a choice" aren't necessarily making a metaphysical claim though Ragtime, they could simply be compatibilists, or even hard determinists who know that the idea of a free will has positive results. You aren't proving your case as you aren't addressing your opposition well.
| Quote: | I understand that you're trying to remove the responsibility for all our actions,
but it's not that easy. |
You are assuming a motive that does not really exist, frankly, I don't see determinism and responsibility as incompatible, nor do I really care if they are.
| Quote: |
The two aren't mutually exclusive. No one field has "the rights to" the study of human will.
Hence, why I said you're talking about "Psychology more than Philosophy and Science".
It's a relative thing. |
Umm..... yeah, we can very effectively say that one field holds dominance over an idea more so than another field. It is not a relative thing at all, especially since I didn't even ARGUE from the human mind and instead argued from man's relationship to time and foreknowledge to argue against your own point. Both time AND foreknowledge are unequivocally metaphysical arguments. If I argued from scientific experiments about the predictability of human behavior or the causality behind it, then I can see how you might classify that as a psychological argument, but that was not my argument as I have been standing rather neutrally on the science of this, even though I could make arguments from a scientific perspective based upon the research in quantum physics, and predictability of brain states and on human choosing mechanisms.
| Quote: |
In conclusion, the evidence for free will is overwhelming. |
Well.... except you didn't present any evidence in defense of your idea. The only way any of your arguments could constitute evidence is if one took a very very naive view of the opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tharn wrote: | I have to admit to being a soft determinist through and through. Specifically, I suspect the two are compatible - though I don't have an inkling how I'd go about supporting that suspicion.
My impression of choice is that if you KNOW all the variables - every neuron, every stimulus - or you're looking back in retrospect - then the decision is Known, like opening up Schrödinger's box. The cat is either dead or not, and the result can be traced back to its causes.
But if you're in the mix, being the agent of the decision, not knowing the variables, free will applies. The box is closed, and the cat may be alive or dead and for whatever reason. This type of free will may be an illusion, but it is a pretty darn convincing illusion! Perhaps we were destined to discuss this matter from the start, which makes me wonder whether I am really responsible for my reply.
(And yes, I know that Schrödinger's cat is usually referred to when discussing quantum dynamics. I'm afraid I didn't have a more appropriate example in mind!) |
Hmm... either you are inconsistent, or you have not focused much on defining free will. In discussions on free will there is libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. The latter is what most soft determinists believe in, and most determinists are soft determinists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7895
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I've written enough for those readers here who wish to think open-mindedly about free will.
You yourself, AG, are obviously biased against me and hard-headed to the clear logic
I've laid out, so I needn't spend any more time in this thread. I've laid out my arguments,
and that's all I needed to do. The poll results show what most people have so far decided.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7907
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Well, I've written enough for those readers here who wish to think open-mindedly about free will. |
well, how exactly a person is open-minded about free will?
| Quote: | You yourself, AG, are obviously biased against me and hard-headed to the clear logic
I've laid out, so I needn't spend any more time in this thread. I've laid out my arguments,
and that's all I needed to do. The poll results show what most people have so far decided. |
To my view, is that you probably offer views that are not much the result of a deep or in-depth thought and view about any subject, but mostly, just a superficial though of it, based on some things learned, and I admit, I do that as well. AG, looks to me to be one of the few that tries to use completely unbiased arguments related to any topic.
_________________
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Einstein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
