Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 04-22-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
John, our mental states are accessible only to the individual experiencing the mental state. You said yourself that "I agree that we cannot literally partake in that sensation of pain...".

My point is valid, and is not "demonstrably untrue".

I feel no need to add to the example I gave in my previous post where I show how indirect access to mental states can be constructed (BTW if this were not so, language would be incoherent).

I concur that direct access (i.e. requiring you to be some other person) to the mental states of others si not possible.

Are you suggesting that indirect knowledge of the trajectory of a rock is invalid because we are not the rock?

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Access to the effects of mental states, is NOT the same as access to the mental states themselves.

Access to a mental state is achieved through a mental state. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Pain is more than a neuron firing, or this or that chemical. We can't look at pain under a microscope. It's really not that difficult, John.

If its not so difficult then, perhaps you could start a new thread with an OP explaining exactly how it is that we experience pain.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
There is nothing controversial about the existence of mental states. Your comment here is equivelent to saying that brains don't exist - only bodies.

I don't understand you. Brains are part of our bodies, where did I say otherwise? Minds are (as far as we have evidence) a phenomenon of the brain/body.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
John, the fact that free will appears to be deterministically caused, does not preclude the fact that free will appears to subjectively real. It would be nice if we could get past this simple point and start to explore what the existence of free will means.

The appearance of free will occurs because our behaviour is unpredictable, even to ourselves (Ha, why did I say that

. If there is something humans cannot readily explain, they tend to invent theories (mystical, scientific and otherwise) to reconcile their experience.

IMO, god, free will, laws of physics. fall into this category of thing. It then remains to sift through the evidence and see which of these theories stands up to the test of reality.

Cheers, John

abe smith · 04-23-2003, 05:44 AM

Ahem. *OI* have free will, but *nobody else* has it.

John Page · 04-23-2003, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith
Ahem. *OI* have free will, but *nobody else* has it.

No you don't, I do!

Just kidding, John

sodium · 04-23-2003, 11:23 AM

I'm not convinced we really do have an illusion or experience of "free will" the way some people are thinking of it. What I most identify with "me" or "I" is my conscious mind. My conscious mind appears to be mainly an internal monologue. But where does that internal monologue come from? I can't really determine that by introspection. Words just pop into my head. They form a kind of internal coherence; they seem like the kind of thing I would think, and often follow from each other. But the internal monologue is actually produced by some process that I do not consciously control. So my conscious mind, the "I" is not really in control after all.

Some people would say that the consciousness producing process is carried out by my brain, others would say my soul. I can't really know which simply by introspection. It doesn't seem to make much difference to the free will issue, though.

Peter Soderqvist · 04-24-2003, 06:17 AM

I am short of time here but have some of you read Daniel Dennet 's new book, Freedom Evolves?

Quotes in a hurry!

Quote:

Matt Ridley reviews Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett
"Either our actions are determined, in which case there is nothing we can do about them, or our actions are random, in which case there is nothing we can do about them."

Daniel Dennett to the rescue. The ebullient, pugnacious and ever pithy sage of Boston has written books on free will, consciousness and Darwinism. He now returns to free will with a remarkably persuasive new idea derived from Darwinism: that freedom of the will is something that grows, that evolves. The greater the sophistication of an organism, the greater its knowledge of the world and of itself, so the greater its ability to take charge of its own destiny. A rock has no freedom to choose; a bacterium has very little; a bird has some; a conscious primate has much more; a conscious primate inheriting a rich lode of cultural knowledge has the most of all.

Determinism - the idea that a cause automatically produces an effect - is not, says Dennett, the same as inevitability. This is a surprising assertion which he spends several chapters justifying, and I think he succeeds.
http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/arts...09/bomain.html

Freedom Evolves by Daniel Clement Dennett
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...959582-4261748

John Page · 04-25-2003, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodium
Some people would say that the consciousness producing process is carried out by my brain, others would say my soul.

...and your soul would be what? Your unconscious mind that's producing the monolog?

Cheers, John

surfs_with_rocks · 04-25-2003, 04:42 PM

If we beleive in the extreme position of determinism then we must
accept that our thoughts are entirely the product of initial physical conditions of the universe as are we.

This precludes self directed thought. Without self directed thought, logic is undermined - we cannot claim to test the validity of a system if our thoughts are merely following a predetermined course.

Without logic we cannot debate the issue of wether or not we have free will

So in order to have this debate we must start with the assumption that we do have free will.

Should this assumption come into question as a result of evidence indicating that we do not have free will we would have to question that evidence - or again be in the position where the debate becomes meaningless

Basically it seems to me that it is not possible to prove we don't have free will, but it may be possible to prove that we do.

Therefore the only rational conclusion is to assume we do have free will, in pretty much the same way that we assume that we do exist.

This frees us to explore the more fruitful path of discovering how free will is possible.

In this regard Quantum mechanics and chaos theory a proving to be useful tools

yaktldg · 04-25-2003, 05:03 PM

surfs_with_rocks: Therefore the only rational conclusion is to assume we do have free will, in pretty much the same way that we assume that we do exist.

I'm inclined to do the opposite: assume we do not have free will, in pretty much the same way we assume that Zeus does not exist.

If logic without "self directed" thought is hard to believe, what's to be said of this thing called "free will"?

surfs_with_rocks · 04-25-2003, 05:07 PM

How does one assume anything without the ability for self directed thought?

John Page · 04-25-2003, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by surfs_with_rocks
If we beleive in the extreme position of determinism then we must accept that our thoughts are entirely the product of initial physical conditions of the universe as are we.

This precludes self directed thought.

Huh? Sorry, but I don't understand how you reach this conclusion from your premises.

Cheers, John

04-23-2003, 05:44 AM	#152
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	... free will Ahem. OI have free will, but nobody else has it.

04-25-2003, 04:42 PM	#157
surfs_with_rocks Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: South Africa Posts: 5	Determinism If we beleive in the extreme position of determinism then we must accept that our thoughts are entirely the product of initial physical conditions of the universe as are we. This precludes self directed thought. Without self directed thought, logic is undermined - we cannot claim to test the validity of a system if our thoughts are merely following a predetermined course. Without logic we cannot debate the issue of wether or not we have free will So in order to have this debate we must start with the assumption that we do have free will. Should this assumption come into question as a result of evidence indicating that we do not have free will we would have to question that evidence - or again be in the position where the debate becomes meaningless Basically it seems to me that it is not possible to prove we don't have free will, but it may be possible to prove that we do. Therefore the only rational conclusion is to assume we do have free will, in pretty much the same way that we assume that we do exist. This frees us to explore the more fruitful path of discovering how free will is possible. In this regard Quantum mechanics and chaos theory a proving to be useful tools

04-25-2003, 05:07 PM	#159
surfs_with_rocks Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: South Africa Posts: 5	we do not exist??? How does one assume anything without the ability for self directed thought?

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

04-23-2003, 11:23 AM	#154
sodium Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: British Columbia Posts: 1,027	I'm not convinced we really do have an illusion or experience of "free will" the way some people are thinking of it. What I most identify with "me" or "I" is my conscious mind. My conscious mind appears to be mainly an internal monologue. But where does that internal monologue come from? I can't really determine that by introspection. Words just pop into my head. They form a kind of internal coherence; they seem like the kind of thing I would think, and often follow from each other. But the internal monologue is actually produced by some process that I do not consciously control. So my conscious mind, the "I" is not really in control after all. Some people would say that the consciousness producing process is carried out by my brain, others would say my soul. I can't really know which simply by introspection. It doesn't seem to make much difference to the free will issue, though.

04-25-2003, 05:03 PM	#158
yaktldg Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: usa Posts: 300	surfs_with_rocks: Therefore the only rational conclusion is to assume we do have free will, in pretty much the same way that we assume that we do exist. I'm inclined to do the opposite: assume we do not have free will, in pretty much the same way we assume that Zeus does not exist. If logic without "self directed" thought is hard to believe, what's to be said of this thing called "free will"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.