Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by DRFseven
I think of it more like you are liable for damages incurred during the operation of "you" (except in certain circumstances). For instance, a bee flies into your car window and stings you, causing you to sideswipe another car. You are liable for damages to the other driver and car, and in addition, you have incurred damage to your own car and a painful bee sting, as well. Circumstances dictate that things happen and sometimes we are the unhappy recipients of bad experiences that seem unfair. By the same token, sometimes serendipitous things happen that we experience as beneficial, that make us happy. We don't mind either windfalls or "unearned" praise ("You have such beautiful eyes!"; "You are so intelligent!"), and we don't mind being praised for behavior that seem earned, either. Either way, our dopaminergic system rewards us.
Thank you, DFRseven, that makes a lot of sense.

Quote flatland:
I would say we do hold a tree responsible for its actions. The tree caused the damage, most directly. The hurricane also caused the damage, but at a greater remove. However, there is no use in punishing or condemning the tree, so we do not. Why? There is no possibility of repeated future actions of this type. There is no use punishing something that will never again harm us. We do not force dead people to serve prison sentences. Additionally, there is no hope that punishing this tree will deter other trees from falling when caused to by hurricanes, or indeed at any time. Trees lack the feedback of a human mind that allows for either behavior or behavior modification.
I'm still not convinced we hold inanimate objects responsible for their actions; however I agree that it is pointless to attempt to modify their behaviour, while it is possible to modify a human's behaviour. I think we need better modification strategies tho'. A lot of people who go to gaol re-offend, and some reoffend in order to return to gaol, because they've become institutionalised, and can't cope with life outside.
TW

Nowhere357

We don't control our thoughts, true. We can however choose which thoughts to focus or concentrate on - that is the action or effect of free will. I understand this can still reduce to the idea that we just "seem" or "feel" like we are choosing.

IMO meditation is the strengthening of our ability to choose which thoughts to focus or concentrate on, just as pumping iron strengthens the muscles.

When I assume there is no free will, I then wonder why evolution carried along such a strange and powerless thing. A mechanism for making choices would be invaluable, of course, but why the silent observer?

Of what survival value is the "illusionary" free will?

VivaHedone

You seem to split thoughts into 'primary' ones and 'secondary' ones which decide which of the primary ones to focus on. I have no idea if this is true, but even if it is, you would not control the secondary thoughts any more than the primary ones. You would have no choice in determining which thoughts to concentrate on. After all, the conscious 'you' is only sensations - how could you have control over anything?

Clivedurdle

Daniel Dennett was mentioned earlier. His latest book "Freedom evolves" discusses this subect in detail, and concludes free will and freedom does exist - it evolved, it is emergent.

The argument between free will and determinism is misconcieved

Nowhere357

We are aware of many "thoughts" and exercise free will in choosing which to focus or concentrate on. For example, I am aware of a desire to finish typing this, and also I'm aware of the need to go pee. I choose to continue typing. As I continue, the need to pee increases, and it becomes harder and harder to choose to ignore that thought. brb

You say:"After all, the conscious 'you' is only sensations - how could you have control over anything?"

If the concious "you" is only sensations, then you are right. Why do you think it is only sensations? Do you not make conscious choices and decisions all the time?

BTW a common argument against fundies is that their view denies free will. Interesting that some skeptic views also deny it.

If I assume there is no free will, I then wonder why evolution carried along such a strange and powerless thing. A mechanism for making choices would be invaluable, of course, but why the silent observer?

Of what survival value is the "illusionary" free will?

Neilium

Hi,

I've been following, stewing and pondering, and I just want to bring the dictionary definition of free will and chew on it. This was posted early on in the thread as a dictionary definition:

"freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"

Breaking it down:

"Divine intervention": The existence or non-existence of that is a whole nuther discussion being carried on elswhere on this board in several threads. I'm a materialist and a determinist, and I will make the assumption typical of my kind: no such thing as divine intervention.

So we're left with:
"freedom of humans to make choices not determined by prior causes". I will not deny that prior causes will not affect and color the choices made by an individual, but I don't think that those choices are absolutely determined by prior causes.

What I'm reaching for is that prior causes and the self are two sides of the same being. We can only understand the world, ourselves, and our choices via our consciousness.

Consciousness is not merely sensations; it is the accumulation of experience, the product of our physical make-up, and the ability to speculate possible futures. The ability to forecast, speculate and anticipate has immense survival value. If the world is fatal, then a mind capable of consciousness is a vestigial organ.

Anyway, have at it and fire your torpedoes. I'm hardly sailing watertight here. As always, very much enjoying the thread.

-Neil

VivaHedone

No, your brain decides to continue typing, based on the sensations it recieves and the way they are processed by the brain.

None, it is a byproduct of language, which gave us the ability to hear and understand our thoughts.

Neilium

VivaHedone,

What's the difference between "your brain" and "you"? Are you proposing that our consciousness is just a spectator and the brain is a separate decision-making organ that operates without our willful interference?

There are all kinds of things the brain controls without our being constantly conscious of: breathing, flight or fight instinct, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean all brain functions are autonomous.

I think you have an extra step in there. Our thoughts don't exist in any other form than in language. There's nothing to understand or hear. There's no pre-lingual form of thought, at least none we can talk about.

-Neil

beastmaster

So dogs don't think/strategize/plan/problem-solve? Or do they think only in terms of barks, woofs, and howls?

As for the survival advantage of "free will":

(1) Not everything is a survival advantage. Some things are mere "spandrels."

(2) As I suggested earlier in this thread, the illusion of free will may have a survival advantage in that it builds neural pathways between the decision and the conscious mind. When you say "I decide X," your conscious mind is remembering that the brain just decided something and where that memory is, so that it will be able to access that memory in the future. The conscious mind does not make the decision, but is the "secretary" -- i.e., it locates and organizes the remembered rules of decision.

Neilium

Oops, big oversight: I should have restricted my original statement to human thought. Leave it to the Beastmaster to straighten me out.

This sounds like Cartesian duality. I don't think there's any sort of gatekeeper or secretary. Daniel Dennert describes consciousness as a mode of action, rather than a specific part of the brain. (that doesn't really help my case for free will, but I thought I should throw it in.)

I think your example ("When you say 'I decide X'") has partitions that I don't believe exist. The conscious mind, memory and the brain are all the same thing; the self. The self isn't a separate part of you acted upon by your senses, memories, etc. The self is the sum of all these things.

-Neil