Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 10-01-2002, 03:46 PM

xeren:

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to point out as well. Any thoughts we have are the result of prior inputs on our mental framework.

Chip · 10-05-2002, 06:00 AM

To throw light on the existence or nonexistence of free will, we first need to look at what logic pertains. We also have to qualify our understanding as to whether or not we are talking about free will for others or the self. Many people have died during the time of humanity�s existence though in most cases the desire to die did not appear to be there. From a strictly objective view point, we have to conclude that free will is nonexistent and this is basically a simple matter of deduction. What about subjective reality or truth? Does free will exist for the self? Here is where deduction may be invalid and the only way one can reason about this is inductively or to use often more accepted terminology of strict logicians, ampliative inference. Consider the major reason as why we do not have free will for our selves and if reason can be found that it is not an obstacle to self determination we will have finished the first part of an ampliative inference that results in accepting free will for the self as probable. The second part of the inductive proof is to see if we can find reasoning that denounces any other instance that we might say as exhibiting free will cessation for the self. Deductive logic deals with certainties and inductive with possibilities. The two approaches are mutually exclusive and are both necessary to go about the process of living. I believe the most we can hope for is to consider free will as possible from the attempt at inductive reasoning as follows:

The one glaring thing that stands in the way of accepting free will for the self that is described as a complete cessation of self-determination and choice is death. One poster here mentioned that his arguments against free will would be challenged if reincarnation happened. Considering the nature of universe leads to acknowledging the possibility of a real-time reincarnation of the self every moment. It is a possible scenario. The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory. Other theories still abound as to the nature of the universe that include the idea that there are multiple big bangs either recurrently or simultaneously or both to varying frequency. These less special case theories are often characterized as steady-state theories where the total universe never had a beginning and will never have an end. That is a possibility. It still fits the observations. In fact, to prove that universe was not steady-state in a strictly deductive manner is not possible as it would require all time and all seeing which is not a foreseeable characteristic of humans. We cannot denounce the possibility of a steady-state universe without forsaking reason. In the equation E=MC^2 we can deduce from conventional algebra that E/M=K, K being a constant, the speed of light squared. A cloud is a complex and dynamic function of energy and matter as is a person. Maybe people also have a cycle to their living as clouds are part of the hydrological cycle, death as evaporation and coming back to life similar to condensation. Evolution is the idea that we have arrived here from all in a circumstantial way. Who is to say we may not arise again from all? Every moment our consciousnesses may be taking paths where we continue to see life and others see us die. Consider how many different things could happen to stop your next breath. Did any of them happen? Maybe they all did which sent the self into a branching of possibilities that led back to all to arise a great deal of time later in sufficiently similar conditions that the new consciousness can not tell the difference. During complete unconsciousness we are not aware of time. Might we die objectively every moment but actually be reincarnated subjectively at the next moment? Do we die to ourselves? This cosmology can be shown in a diagram that shows life as a force field. I�ve put a drawing of this possible vector field on my web site, <a href="http://home.pacbell.net/chipl/lifeforce.gif" target="_blank">http://home.pacbell.net/chipl/lifeforce.gif</a> , if you look closely, you will see that the biosphere is considered as a big part of the self.

What about all of the other things that can happen to thwart our free will? First of all we must peel the layers of human consciousness as an onion. What one truly wants might not be what we claim to want. Consider the laws of nature, the observed generalizations that appear to apply to all physical situations, the various observations of algebraic maxims and principles that are a part of all science. We can see these as restrictions on our choices or maybe we actually wanted our existence to have order. Maybe we have actually evolved having chosen defining characteristics for ourselves. If we are immortal, we�ve been here and will be here for all time. What we are then experiencing is something of our choosing that includes at one time at least the illusion that we know nothing and have things of value to learn. Value is the key word. Having a meaningful existence cannot occur in a universe where �anything goes.�

With time any desired experience should be within manifestation by will. Besides the incredible abilities that are coming with science we also have the increasing ability to fool ourselves with virtual reality. The person who wishes to sustain their self-determination will spend most of their time outside of fantasy.

Still one obstacle may exist as to whether or not there is free will. The psychological distaste and desire to shirk responsibility for the conditions of our lives, the poor state of affairs that leads too many to succumb to survival prerogatives where they see and experience much despair, can lead to people not believing in free will. Their actions reflect that belief. To have free will may require choosing it for the self and allowing as well as facilitating others to do so also. Seeking to become rational thinking representatives of life may be a price that must be paid. If the payment of exercising responsibility for the benefit of ourselves, humanity and the biosphere is what we might want to do, then maybe, just maybe, we can choose to have free will.

Laurentius · 10-05-2002, 06:42 AM

Stating that people are endowed with free will is not just a morality's whim, although the term/concept may have coined to arbitrarily press ethical responsibility on us all.

Free will is much of a commonsensical postulate.

Free. Will.

Can anyone demonstrate there is absolute freedom?
No.
This fact only would be enough to show there's no free will.

And exactly what is will?
A vital drive.
A force-like feature.

Is confusing or what?

And yet relative freedom exists in different degrees. As for the will, it is a psichological reality as actual as personality for instance.

Interdependece and universal conditioning does not eliminates the possibility of entities to develop devices of controling the environment and elaborate specific reactions to various inputs.

Roughly that may be what free will is all about.

AVE

Kent Stevens · 10-06-2002, 04:27 PM

Quote:

And exactly what is will?
A vital drive.
A force-like feature.

Is confusing or what?

And yet relative freedom exists in different degrees. As for the will, it is a psichological reality as actual as personality for instance.

The soul can be defined as:
A vital drive.
A force-like feature.

The problem is that the soul does not exist. Will as it is defined above does not exist either. People do not have a special spooky boo property that makes them different from other dynamic systems.

A snail or an insect has intent, in that they try to do certain things. In this sense they will certain things to happen. But an insect does not have a force-like feature that makes them do certain things. I suggest that all life does not have this force like feature.

Laurentius · 10-06-2002, 04:40 PM

Suggestion marked.

I for one tend to consider what experts have to say. So far they (biologists, philosophers, sociologists) agree on the existence of will.

AVE

K · 10-06-2002, 04:54 PM

Laurentius:

Are you saying the agree on the existence of a will that is beyond the physical? That they agree there is a will that is different between humans and all other complex systems? I sincerely doubt that they agree on that - especially the biologists. If this isn't what you're saying, I withdraw this comment.

Kent Stevens · 10-09-2002, 10:33 AM

Does a computer game have will? Does a bacterium have a will?

I believe that neither of them have will. I believe that people intend to do certain things, that they will something to happen. But it seems unusual if you say that the will is a distinct part of the mind.

The whole person arises out of the mind which resides in the brain. A person's intent results from all of the brain sensing information and processing it to come up with a decision. If you affect the brain you change the person which would change what they will. To say that the will is a distinct part of the brain makes the same error as saying that someone resides in only one part of their brain. Intent is a global property of the mind.

galiel · 10-09-2002, 11:45 AM

I found it instructive to read what a leading expert on evolutionary psychology has to say about the issue. <a href="http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml" target="_blank">Reason</a> has an interview with Stephen Pinker about his latest book, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature". It is very relevant to this discussion, particularly the latest comments on this thread.

Laurentius · 10-09-2002, 01:03 PM

Biologist do speak of volition, voluntary actions and motivation. These are aspects of what philosophers call will.

AVE

Kent Stevens · 10-10-2002, 11:04 AM

A quote from Steven Pinker taken from the Reason magazine article mentioned in a previous posting.

Quote:

What we call free will is a product of particular circuits of the brain, presumably concentrated in the prefrontal lobes, that respond to contingencies of responsibility and credit and blame and reward and punishment and alter their operations as a consequence.

Our decision to hold people responsible for their behavior is itself part of the environment in which the brain works. The brain can respond to an environment in which people are held responsible, and that’s why we should continue to hold people responsible.

More to the point, you don’t need to invoke a soul or some mysterious process of free will to hold people accountable. Indeed, one could argue the opposite of that: If we really are totally unconstrained -- if there is a self or soul that can do what it damn well pleases -- that’s when holding people responsible would be futile. The soul could always choose to ignore contingencies of credit, blame, reward, or punishment: "I don’t care if you think that I’m a lying, cheating bastard. I do what I damn well please."

I wonder if Steven Pinker has modified his position on free will. In his book "How the Mind Works" he was basically saying that free will does not exist. But he took a similar view to Marvin Minsky that free will was still a necessary assumption, in order to be able to hold people responsible for their actions. Free will is supposed to be a necessary assumption, just as equality needs to be assumed when making legal judgements.

My opinion is that you do not need to assume magic to be able to hold people morally responsible. This last paragraph of Steven Pinker's quote seems to agree with this. Pinker seems to be taking a more definite position against free will. Pinker says that if people had free will, you could argue that it undermines responsibility. This is because with free will people could ignore any type of punishment that may cause alternative behaviour. Punishment becomes ineffective.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Stevens ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2002, 03:46 PM	#51
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	xeren: Exactly. That's what I've been trying to point out as well. Any thoughts we have are the result of prior inputs on our mental framework.

10-05-2002, 06:00 AM	#52
Chip Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 382	To throw light on the existence or nonexistence of free will, we first need to look at what logic pertains. We also have to qualify our understanding as to whether or not we are talking about free will for others or the self. Many people have died during the time of humanity�s existence though in most cases the desire to die did not appear to be there. From a strictly objective view point, we have to conclude that free will is nonexistent and this is basically a simple matter of deduction. What about subjective reality or truth? Does free will exist for the self? Here is where deduction may be invalid and the only way one can reason about this is inductively or to use often more accepted terminology of strict logicians, ampliative inference. Consider the major reason as why we do not have free will for our selves and if reason can be found that it is not an obstacle to self determination we will have finished the first part of an ampliative inference that results in accepting free will for the self as probable. The second part of the inductive proof is to see if we can find reasoning that denounces any other instance that we might say as exhibiting free will cessation for the self. Deductive logic deals with certainties and inductive with possibilities. The two approaches are mutually exclusive and are both necessary to go about the process of living. I believe the most we can hope for is to consider free will as possible from the attempt at inductive reasoning as follows: The one glaring thing that stands in the way of accepting free will for the self that is described as a complete cessation of self-determination and choice is death. One poster here mentioned that his arguments against free will would be challenged if reincarnation happened. Considering the nature of universe leads to acknowledging the possibility of a real-time reincarnation of the self every moment. It is a possible scenario. The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory. Other theories still abound as to the nature of the universe that include the idea that there are multiple big bangs either recurrently or simultaneously or both to varying frequency. These less special case theories are often characterized as steady-state theories where the total universe never had a beginning and will never have an end. That is a possibility. It still fits the observations. In fact, to prove that universe was not steady-state in a strictly deductive manner is not possible as it would require all time and all seeing which is not a foreseeable characteristic of humans. We cannot denounce the possibility of a steady-state universe without forsaking reason. In the equation E=MC^2 we can deduce from conventional algebra that E/M=K, K being a constant, the speed of light squared. A cloud is a complex and dynamic function of energy and matter as is a person. Maybe people also have a cycle to their living as clouds are part of the hydrological cycle, death as evaporation and coming back to life similar to condensation. Evolution is the idea that we have arrived here from all in a circumstantial way. Who is to say we may not arise again from all? Every moment our consciousnesses may be taking paths where we continue to see life and others see us die. Consider how many different things could happen to stop your next breath. Did any of them happen? Maybe they all did which sent the self into a branching of possibilities that led back to all to arise a great deal of time later in sufficiently similar conditions that the new consciousness can not tell the difference. During complete unconsciousness we are not aware of time. Might we die objectively every moment but actually be reincarnated subjectively at the next moment? Do we die to ourselves? This cosmology can be shown in a diagram that shows life as a force field. I�ve put a drawing of this possible vector field on my web site, <a href="http://home.pacbell.net/chipl/lifeforce.gif" target="_blank">http://home.pacbell.net/chipl/lifeforce.gif</a> , if you look closely, you will see that the biosphere is considered as a big part of the self. What about all of the other things that can happen to thwart our free will? First of all we must peel the layers of human consciousness as an onion. What one truly wants might not be what we claim to want. Consider the laws of nature, the observed generalizations that appear to apply to all physical situations, the various observations of algebraic maxims and principles that are a part of all science. We can see these as restrictions on our choices or maybe we actually wanted our existence to have order. Maybe we have actually evolved having chosen defining characteristics for ourselves. If we are immortal, we�ve been here and will be here for all time. What we are then experiencing is something of our choosing that includes at one time at least the illusion that we know nothing and have things of value to learn. Value is the key word. Having a meaningful existence cannot occur in a universe where �anything goes.� With time any desired experience should be within manifestation by will. Besides the incredible abilities that are coming with science we also have the increasing ability to fool ourselves with virtual reality. The person who wishes to sustain their self-determination will spend most of their time outside of fantasy. Still one obstacle may exist as to whether or not there is free will. The psychological distaste and desire to shirk responsibility for the conditions of our lives, the poor state of affairs that leads too many to succumb to survival prerogatives where they see and experience much despair, can lead to people not believing in free will. Their actions reflect that belief. To have free will may require choosing it for the self and allowing as well as facilitating others to do so also. Seeking to become rational thinking representatives of life may be a price that must be paid. If the payment of exercising responsibility for the benefit of ourselves, humanity and the biosphere is what we might want to do, then maybe, just maybe, we can choose to have free will.

10-05-2002, 06:42 AM	#53
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Stating that people are endowed with free will is not just a morality's whim, although the term/concept may have coined to arbitrarily press ethical responsibility on us all. Free will is much of a commonsensical postulate. Free. Will. Can anyone demonstrate there is absolute freedom? No. This fact only would be enough to show there's no free will. And exactly what is will? A vital drive. A force-like feature. Is confusing or what? And yet relative freedom exists in different degrees. As for the will, it is a psichological reality as actual as personality for instance. Interdependece and universal conditioning does not eliminates the possibility of entities to develop devices of controling the environment and elaborate specific reactions to various inputs. Roughly that may be what free will is all about. AVE

10-06-2002, 04:40 PM	#55
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Suggestion marked. I for one tend to consider what experts have to say. So far they (biologists, philosophers, sociologists) agree on the existence of will. AVE

10-06-2002, 04:54 PM	#56
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Laurentius: Are you saying the agree on the existence of a will that is beyond the physical? That they agree there is a will that is different between humans and all other complex systems? I sincerely doubt that they agree on that - especially the biologists. If this isn't what you're saying, I withdraw this comment.

10-09-2002, 10:33 AM	#57
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	Does a computer game have will? Does a bacterium have a will? I believe that neither of them have will. I believe that people intend to do certain things, that they will something to happen. But it seems unusual if you say that the will is a distinct part of the mind. The whole person arises out of the mind which resides in the brain. A person's intent results from all of the brain sensing information and processing it to come up with a decision. If you affect the brain you change the person which would change what they will. To say that the will is a distinct part of the brain makes the same error as saying that someone resides in only one part of their brain. Intent is a global property of the mind.

10-09-2002, 11:45 AM	#58
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	I found it instructive to read what a leading expert on evolutionary psychology has to say about the issue. <a href="http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml" target="_blank">Reason</a> has an interview with Stephen Pinker about his latest book, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature". It is very relevant to this discussion, particularly the latest comments on this thread.

10-09-2002, 01:03 PM	#59
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	Biologist do speak of volition, voluntary actions and motivation. These are aspects of what philosophers call will. AVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.