Keith Russell

John:

So you are saying that I can consciously comprehend someone else's mechanism--using scalpels and forceps--just not my own?

Now, what is this mechanism, anyway?

And why did you alter the course of an epistemological discussion, to be one of simple biology, physiology, and anatomy?

Keith.

Giorgia

I belong to an MSN group called "Pagans, Atheists, Christians, More..." and some of their "posters" are quite erudite (though the discourse sometimes gets hostile, not like here). Anyway, an attack on atheism by one of the more persistent Xers led one of the more well-read posters to start an entire thread with a dissertation titled "Determinism and Free Will." I must admit, it's way over my head, but I mention it here, as there is a most interesting discussion going on there. (There's also a very interesting string about religion/access/funding of public education somewhat misleadingly called "morality in schools" that might catch the fancy of some of you.)
I'm new to this board, so I won't add anything else at this time -- I'll just go back to browsing and reading.

admice

I vote the first and the second. Osiris I loved your reply. Responsibility is still ours for what we DO have control over. Liquidrage? I'm guessing you're a programmer. I had this (long and tedious actually) discussion with a programmer friend of mine and I argue that the parameters of AI are not the same as humans'.

I hate determinism and it's consequences and even if it only SEEMS we can affect ourselves, our world, and each other (because we have limited information tracing back the 'causes' ad infinitum), we do have a consistent cause and effect data source (sometimes), then we can choose and be held responsible for our actions. That's to me a much more important point.

John Page

Take a friend and, while they're awake, poke various parts of their brain and see what affect this has on their responses. For exmaple, splitting the brian in half will separate certain cognitive powers from the power of spoken response. Much has been written about such neurological experiments including analyses of the results.

Thus, poking around in brains enables you to consciously comprehend how the consciousness of others is thus affected. While I am not expecting you to accept the case as proven, this does point to a fundemental link between brain function, cognition and decision making. As I stated above, because you do not normally have insight into how you mind does what it does, its actions are mysterious perhaps adding to the illusion of "free will".
Same thing. This is like asking me why I would mention transistors in an attemnpted explanation of computing.

Cheers, John

John Page

Well, that just about sums it up for determinism then, doesn't it?

Cheers, John

Dominus Paradoxum

"I hate determinism and it's consequences..."

What? I think anyone who has qualms about determinism should check out my essay (which is too long to post here ): http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/phil...ofliberty.html

Keith Russell

John:

I accept the embodied mind, and I reject the notion of an uncaused human action.

'Free will' is simply a phrase which--as we have seen in the various free will discussions which have taken place here--must be clearly defined, in order to be even vaguely understood.

Now, as you yourself said, poking around with forceps and scalpels, doesn't really reveal the mental mechanism that motivates individual action.

But I think introspection can--as long as forceps and scalpels are kept in their drawers.

Keith.

John Page

I did and was surprised to read:

As others have pointed out, holding a person responsible for their own actions appears to be a key factor in determining an individual's behavior within a group. To hold someone responsible implies they must have some choice (otherwise holding the responsible would be pointless).

Thus I argue tere is a case the belief in free will has not only helped the development of human society, a belief in self-determination it is at the very foundation of our behavior. I predict that as we unravel the mysteries of mind we will become less judgemental of individual's characters because we will understand and be able to address the underlying causes (e.g. traits comcomitent with childhood sexual abuse).

Cheers, John

John Page

Keith:

Again, I'm in basic agreement but believe we need to understand the physical bases of thought and verify its action upon our own thoughts in order to confirm that our introspection is correct.
Poking around in brains might also involve magnets, drugs, electrical probes etc. to simulate various conditions. i.e. we will need to experiment on ourselves (hopefully using more delicate means than forceps/scalpels) in order to see how and where the conscious "I" occurs.

Cheers, John

Dominus Paradoxum

"Thus I argue tere is a case the belief in free will has not only helped the development of human society, a belief in self-determination it is at the very foundation of our behavior. I predict that as we unravel the mysteries of mind we will become less judgemental of individual's characters because we will understand and be able to address the underlying causes (e.g. traits comcomitent with childhood sexual abuse)."

I don't deny that people are responsible to
some extent. But like I said, there is no way to argue for the justness of an irrevocable sentence, or one that would last longer than when an individual was ready to re-enter society. And it is that kind of "responsibility" - the kind that leads to death sentences and such- that I don't believe in. But as you go on to say, the more we learn about the true causes of our behavior, the less judgemental people will be. So, unless I'm mistaken, don't we agree ?

Peace,

Dominus.