Freethought & Rationalism Archive

cobrashock · 05-09-2003, 07:18 AM

Good read so far you guys! Now I know why I "chose" to join this board. :banghead:
cobrashock

DRFseven · 05-09-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
We all have direct experience of the quality of will. I would say that the default position is that we can make decisions and affect ourselves and our world. The burden of proof is on those who deny this.

Of course we have will; no one denies that. It is the biases that MAKE UP the will. Without weights to tip the scale one way or the other, we'd be frozen; no choice would ever be made; we'd never arrive at any conclusion, nor have a reason to have any opinion.

Keith Russell · 05-09-2003, 08:25 AM

I don't see how anyone can deny that humans have individual 'wills'.

The question, it seems to me, is what one means by a 'free' will.

I think most definitions of 'free will' contradict much of what we know of human biology.

Still, the argument, it seems to me, is primarily semantic in nature.

Keith.

JGL53 · 05-09-2003, 08:44 AM

I THINK my main point was that our obviously existing 'free will' has its sufficient causes in the real or material world, and is therefore a real part of the material world, which is deterministic as far as human knowledge goes. The burden is on those who disagree, their burden being to prove a dualism universe of matter vs. spirit/mind.

In a nutshell, I see no contradiction between free will and determinism, as so many people assume or believe. The former is subsumed in the latter. Problem solved (unless those with the aforementioned burden meet their burden.).

Is that clear as mud?

Keith Russell · 05-09-2003, 11:59 AM

JG, no, it's far more transparent than mud.

In fact, I agree with you completely--

--except for your use of the word 'free'...

K

Nowhere357 · 05-09-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven

Of course we have will; no one denies that. It is the biases that MAKE UP the will. Without weights to tip the scale one way or the other, we'd be frozen; no choice would ever be made; we'd never arrive at any conclusion, nor have a reason to have any opinion. [/B]

I'm thinking you've missed my point.

If we choose (!) to not apply will, then yes our choices depend only on the given weights - the path of least resistence, I guess.

When we apply will, that changes the given weights. "Will" is itself one of the biases!

IOW using will affects the brain.

From Keith:

Quote:

I think most definitions of 'free will' contradict much of what we know of human biology.
Still, the argument, it seems to me, is primarily semantic in nature.

I agree it's mostly semantics. Still, it's a lot of fun to talk about.

I'm trying to formulate my understanding by including only what we know, and observe, both objectively and subjectively. Currently I think my definition does not contradict biology. It also does not contradict personal experience. Well, thats how I see it.

From JGL:

Quote:

I THINK my main point was that our obviously existing 'free will' has its sufficient causes in the real or material world, and is therefore a real part of the material world, which is deterministic as far as human knowledge goes.

I completely agree with these points.

Quote:

The burden is on those who disagree, their burden being to prove a dualism universe of matter vs. spirit/mind.

I agree with the first part, but I think the second part is a fallacy of distraction, by false dilemma. I see no reason to assume the current view of dualism is the only other option.

I see little reason to assume that "spirit/mind" can exist independantly of the body, and I do see reasons to think that they don't.

Quote:

In a nutshell, I see no contradiction between free will and determinism, as so many people assume or believe.

I see no contradiction, either.

Quote:

Is that clear as mud?

:notworthy

Carl Treetop · 05-09-2003, 02:10 PM

To JGL53:

Thanks for the excellent input!

(Hope you will be around over the weekend.)

Carl Treetop · 05-10-2003, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Treetop
Here is where it gets trickier. (Again, there is will which is a part of everyone�s makeup.) Everyone�s behavior and decisions are predetermined. But what happens to each individual due to outside forces is another matter. IE: Suppose a particular person is a good driver, but gets hit by a careless driver and injured. No way to know that this would happen to that individual and it does not seem feasible that such a thing could be predetermined. It seems this is where randomness comes into play. However, what *is* predetermined, is how that individual will react to this new situation.

John Page�s response:
Carl, I think there may [be] some Red Herrings here.

1. Predetermined can be taken to be predetermined by something or someone. Predetermination is only in reference to laws/rules that we use to explain why stuff happens. As far as I know there is no "predetermining agent".
2. If everything is predetermined then nothing can be totally random, irrespective of anyone's knowledge. If you are stating just how things appear to the driver, then I have no beef. The event could appear random/non-predetermined to them.

Thanks, John. Yes, clarification needed here. A standard definition from Merriam Webster:

pre.de.ter.mine vt [LL praedeterminare, fr. L prae- + determinare to determine] (1625) 1 a: foreordain, predestine b: to determine beforehand 2: to impose a direction or tendency on beforehand

The word "predetermined" as applied to each person�s behavior and decisions is only accurate by definitions 1b and 2; and not by 1a (unless one believes that a supernatural being has foreordained everyone�s every move). In other words, a decision that an adult makes today is based upon genetic proclivities, cultural teachings, lessons of prior events, etc. However�

de.ter.mine; de.ter.mined ; de.ter.min.ing ... 2 a: to fix the form, position, or character of beforehand:

This definition is more to the point. The use of the prefix "pre" in "predetermined" is not necessary and can be misleading. So, "everyone�s behavior and decisions have been �determined� "... I stand corrected.

de.ter.min.ism n (1846) 1 a: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b: a belief in predestination 2: the quality or state of being determined

Predestination is not what we are talking about. (If a tree falls on x�s house, this would seem to be an occurrence which only by chance happened to affect x in particular.) Otherwise, this definition seems to be acceptable.

Carl Treetop · 05-10-2003, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere:
Don't you recall making a mental effort to make your choice? It's not like we're watching tv, it's more like we're changing channels. When we apply our will, we use it, we perform a mental action. The will is not passive.

You seem to insist that "will" has meaning only in terms of mental effort. The meaning is much broader than that. We use our will every time we speak or make a move. Most of the time the effort if so minimal that we are not aware of it. When we are conscious of effort, it only means that we are bucking a contrary force. It�s the same "will" whether we are conscous of effort or not.

Merriam Webster:
will vb, �1--used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job> <if we ~ all do our best> <~ you please stop that racket> > � 6 a--used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I ~>

synonyms: decision, choice, resolution/resoluteness, volition, desire, inclination, wish

Carl Treetop · 05-10-2003, 09:06 AM

Keith Russell states:

"I don't see how anyone can deny that humans have individual 'wills'."

Determinists and Free-willers are agreed on that.

"The question, it seems to me, is what one means by a 'free' will."

Free-will proponents tend to think that their conscious minds can meet problems as they come up and can decide on courses of action while rising above the influence of their cultural conditioning and genetic proclivities, if necessary to their desired ends. (Shopenhauer very succinctly addresses this point. See below.)

Notice that the 'desired ends' are ultimately what are willed.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"�Free Will� is largely a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. � Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. � But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship."

"I think most definitions of 'free will' contradict much of what we know of human biology."

Yes, contradict or ignore significant aspects of biology.

"Still, the argument, it seems to me, is primarily semantic in nature."

I disagree. Semantic problems seem relatively minor in this debate. The issue basically comes down to: Are we automatons or not, or partially so?

Quote:

Schopenhauer:
A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.

View Poll Results: Does it matter?
Yup - huge difference	26	43.33%
Nope - it doesn't matter	27	45.00%
I have no choice in the matter	7	11.67%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

05-09-2003, 11:59 AM	#65
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	...and so it goes... JG, no, it's far more transparent than mud. In fact, I agree with you completely-- --except for your use of the word 'free'... K

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

05-09-2003, 07:18 AM	#61
cobrashock Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis,Indiana Posts: 27	Good read so far you guys! Now I know why I "chose" to join this board. :banghead: cobrashock

05-09-2003, 08:25 AM	#63
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	I don't see how anyone can deny that humans have individual 'wills'. The question, it seems to me, is what one means by a 'free' will. I think most definitions of 'free will' contradict much of what we know of human biology. Still, the argument, it seems to me, is primarily semantic in nature. Keith.

05-09-2003, 08:44 AM	#64
JGL53 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outer Mongolia Posts: 4,091	I THINK my main point was that our obviously existing 'free will' has its sufficient causes in the real or material world, and is therefore a real part of the material world, which is deterministic as far as human knowledge goes. The burden is on those who disagree, their burden being to prove a dualism universe of matter vs. spirit/mind. In a nutshell, I see no contradiction between free will and determinism, as so many people assume or believe. The former is subsumed in the latter. Problem solved (unless those with the aforementioned burden meet their burden.). Is that clear as mud?

05-09-2003, 02:10 PM	#67
Carl Treetop Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 20	To JGL53: Thanks for the excellent input! (Hope you will be around over the weekend.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.