beastmaster

I already agree with both of those positions, so maybe I'm the one who hasn't been clear.

Nowhere357 had argued that one must *have* free will in order to decide that there is no free will.

My point was that one need not freely decide that there is no free will to arrive at that conclusion -- the conclusion can be arrived at deterministically or by one's sub-thinking or non-conscious mind, with the decision-making faculties of the conscious mind uninvolved.

It's better to say that the conscious mind *realizes* there is no free will than that the conscious mind *decides* there is no free will.

Hope that's clearer.

John Page

Oberbeastenfuhrer:

Thanks, sorry if I misunderstood your point. What do you say to "The conscious mind can choose to believe whether there is free will or not, irrespective of the fact of the matter"?

I'm not trying to be "better" but want to focus on the "choosing", once we can establish there is a choosing mechanism there is no longer a need for the operation of "free will".

Cheers, John

beastmaster

LOL!

I strive toward concision, but sometimes end up saying too little.

I would disagree with that statement. The conscious mind can provide "clerical" support in a tough decision (like a meta-search engine of one's memories and mental file cabinets) and often declares the choice afterit is made (talking to oneself). But the decision itself is driven by rules and criteria that are formed in parts of the brain that are not subject to the whims and fancies of the conscious self.

I agree, choices get made, but we have no control over them.

Amos

Free from desires and this includes any or all the unanswered questions that appear before us.

Treacle Worshipper

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Neilium
Awesome! That just kicks my ass. I thought my identical twins question was solid, to the point of my feeling overconfident. Thanks for finding this article and tearing another aspect of my worldview asunder.
You're welcome (I think? ) It's just as well it was this week's magazine, & not last week's, or I would've thrown it away & been reduced to saying "I'm sure I read somewhere there was this tv programme that.... etc..."

Finally, TW, here's one view of determinism: http://www.determinism.com/
Thanks for the link, I will take time to look at it tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired & more likely to be able to process it.

DRFSeven said:
But don't you say this because you think of "deciding" or "choosing" as an action requiring free will? If free will were the case, there would be nothing on which to base our decisions. So "determined will" enables decision-making.

Our decisions are always based on something, even if we are unaware of it. We can never be free (and would never want to be free) of our framework for decision-making; otherwise there would be nothing but fence-sitting. We make decisions, but they are bound to our circumstances.

and beastmaster said:
My point was that one need not freely decide that there is no free will to arrive at that conclusion -- the conclusion can be arrived at deterministically or by one's sub-thinking or non-conscious mind, with the decision-making faculties of the conscious mind uninvolved.

It's better to say that the conscious mind *realizes* there is no free will than that the conscious mind *decides* there is no free will.
These are both more-or-less describing what I'm aiming at. We are able to make decisions/realise things, but these will always be dependent on what has happened to us before, whether in our conscious mind or not. Therefore we do not truly have free will, because we are not capable of making judgements that are "not determined by prior causes", as per dictionary.

Amos, I'm sorry for not responding to you. I appreciate your participation, but I frequently find that I don't understand the concepts you're talking about.
For instance, this Free from desires and this includes any or all the unanswered questions that appear before us. sounds like you're aiming for Nirvana.
TW

Torben

I apologize for butting in


I think there is a tremendous point here. Just like the outcome of the roll of a die is not random, but only looks so to us because we cannot comprehend all the single determining factors involved in the outcome, could it be that the perceived free will is only so perceived for the same reasons? So for us it doesn't really matter, practically or morally whether there is a free will or not, because for all practical purposes, there is.

Red is not a feature of the world, nor is sweet or whatever, but we still perceive it very much so -- for practical purposes.

Physically, it seems impropable that we with our minds should be able to escape the deterministic behaviour of the atoms that we are composed of. Leaving us only with indeterminate events such as radioactive decay to explain the apparent free will.

I therefore have to conclude for now that free will is something we experience and might very well accept in legal matters as well as moral ones, but which nevertheless seems not to be existing in the world as such.

Please comment.

Regards,
Torben

yaktldg

Torben: Just like the outcome of the roll of a die is not random, but only looks so to us because we cannot comprehend all the single determining factors involved in the outcome, could it be that the perceived free will is only so perceived for the same reasons?

I'm going to use that example.

Torben: Physically, it seems impropable that we with our minds should be able to escape the deterministic behaviour of the atoms that we are composed of.

I ignorantly agree.

Torben: I therefore have to conclude for now that free will is something we experience and might very well accept in legal matters as well as moral ones

To what extent? We should certainly address a damaged mind, but today's methods of punishment for an "evil soul" are far from constructive.

John Page

Beasty Boy:

I did not mean to imply that the "conscious mind" has some mysterious free will card - it is a phenomenon of the brain if neurological experiments are to be believed. In this sense I agree with your response but for clarity would insert the parts of the brain that effect before the words "the conscious self".

Cheers. John

DRFseven

Yes, but that is a different question from that of free will. That is, it is an important aspect, to us, when we think of the ramifications of not having free will, but I think that is only because we believe that "fairness" is necessary. Maybe fairness IS necessary for certain ends, but that doesn't affect the mechanism of psychological determinism. I have actually had people say things like, "I believe in free will because otherwise I'd have to excuse low-lifes and criminals from the consequences of their behavior" (ironically, not realizing they are telling me that they are driven to a certain conclusion, i.e., they have to think things because of other things they think).

If we're honest we have to admit that for society to run, we have to legislate against the unlucky. I think it has to be that way. And, yes, yes, I understand that criminals commit crimes, "themselves", but realize they were bound to do so.

King's Indian

Hello, Beastmaster.
I'm going to take a day off from this, as it's giving me a tummy-ache in my brain. Before that, I hope you don't mind my being picky, but we really don't get a lot of determinists round our manor, so I'm making hay.
1) As far as punishment goes, I accept that your position makes sense. However, what I should have added was: we don't just punish people. From our perspective, we seem to identify and arrest wrong-doers, for acts we describe as wrong. I'm not questioning that this may be down to the result of non-conscious (though deluded) physical entities for the moment; but if determinism is true, how do we incorporate that truth into our moral sense? Do we accept our fiction of conscious choice-making for the sake of pragmatism? I'm not sure that a truth that we can't apply in important areas in our lives has a lot going for it. [Added: and it seems to be unique amongst truths in that respect as well]
2) Where do laws of nature come from? they're not just there, like leaves and hills and neurons. They were determined by scientists making observations, performing experiments and deciding on fruitful lines of enquiry. if scientfic theories that show an exceptional fit with observation are phenomena that piggy-back on unconscious mechanisms, then...well, you know.
3) The next point is the same as the one I addressed to "hard determinism" Kip. Your points were well thought out, and I am having to rethink the "legal" objection a bit, but what were you hoping for when you posted them? To change my mind by force of argument? The only way I can look at it from a deterministic point of view is that your regiment of bio-chemical processes are attempting a change in my regiment etc. by the visual stimuli of your posts. Isn't that a bit like saying that the changing wind pattern persuaded the cloud to disperse? And what would our RoBCP's get out of it? I don't think it could be reproductive fitness.
Finally, perhaps natural processes just made some people's brains into determinism-believing shapes, and others not. In that case, we might as well be debating the difference between my thinning crown, and your abundant locks, the glossiness of which has reduced roomfuls to stunned admiration.
Sorry if you've come across these points before, and I beg your patience.
Take care,
KI

PS. John, you're always free to jump in and take my place, as long as you keep it warm.
PPS. Almost all the references to clouds removed from final draft.