I'm noticing that people who are pro-government often don't believe in free will, and vice versa for free market supporters. Anybody noticed this in their interactions?
Socialism functions by offering what people need, thereby determining their happiness. Free markets are determined by voluntary transactions that consumers and producers manifest through individual will.
But some people in my class say free will doesn't exist, which is a ridiculous claim but difficult to disprove.
Thoughts?
Have you checked out the "blank posts" section of the newbie thread yet?
If free will doesn't exist, why do we bother with government? People are going to do what they want to do anyway.
I have asked my religious family this kind of thing. Why is 9/11 a bad thing if it is part of God's will? We could have never prevented it. And in that act of stopping anyone from doing anything else, are you subverting their free will or are you not conscious of your act? Are you a mere instrument?
It would rely on the dissolution of body from mind. In that, your mind is controlling your body and actions and your mind is also independent of your mental control. No wonder they are pro-government. They think that everyone is a psychotic.
Having said that, it sounds as if there is a certain level of theology that is present in your "class."
Isn't the onus on them to prove that there is no such thing as free will? What controls their actions if not them?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
John James: Have you checked out the "blank posts" section of the newbie thread yet?
Nope but now I will, thanks mate!
triknighted: John James: Have you checked out the "blank posts" section of the newbie thread yet? Nope but now I will, thanks mate!
So the Blank Posts section just says to copy text before posting, but it doesn't say how to get beyond posting a new discussion topic and having it come up blank. Is there a secret I missed? I read the section twice.
triknighted:So the Blank Posts section just says to copy text before posting, but it doesn't say how to get beyond posting a new discussion topic and having it come up blank. Is there a secret I missed? I read the section twice.
"If this happens to you, sorry, there is no way (we know of) to recover your brilliant prose. Here and here are quick threads with the basic recommendation: use a different browser."
What browser do you use? And what sort of device do you use to access this website?
John James: triknighted:So the Blank Posts section just says to copy text before posting, but it doesn't say how to get beyond posting a new discussion topic and having it come up blank. Is there a secret I missed? I read the section twice. "If this happens to you, sorry, there is no way (we know of) to recover your brilliant prose. Here and here are quick threads with the basic recommendation: use a different browser." What browser do you use? And what sort of device do you use to access this website?
I see. I use Internet Explorer. You use Firefox?
Aristophanes: If free will doesn't exist, why do we bother with government? People are going to do what they want to do anyway. I have asked my religious family this kind of thing. Why is 9/11 a bad thing if it is part of God's will? We could have never prevented it. And in that act of stopping anyone from doing anything else, are you subverting their free will or are you not conscious of your act? Are you a mere instrument? It would rely on the dissolution of body from mind. In that, your mind is controlling your body and actions and your mind is also independent of your mental control. No wonder they are pro-government. They think that everyone is a psychotic. Having said that, it sounds as if there is a certain level of theology that is present in your "class."
Good point. I guess there's just no way to reason with people who don't want to reason.
triknighted:I see. I use Internet Explorer. You use Firefox?
Keep reading that same post...
"Here and here are quick threads with the basic recommendation: use a different browser. Firefox and Chrome/Chromium don't seem to have any issues. (So join the new millenium and quit with the Internet Explorer, you laggard.)"
You seriously read it twice?
Libertarians and free market supporters tend to be much more individualistic, either deriving this from or deriving from this their feelings about free will. To accept free will is usually synonymous with accepting the power and significance of the individual, while at the same time it is difficult for someone to accept the importance of an individual without accepting the fact that the individual actually exists and can change the world.
Reverse this and you can see the more socialistic side of the matter.
With all this said I don't see that there's even a possibility that free will exists... Call me an exception to the rule :P
With all this said I don't see that there's even a possibility that free will exists...
Why? Is 'something etheral' compelling you to type on this forum? Wouldn't you rather be ... I guess it doesn't matter what you'd "rather" be doing...?
"Is 'something etheral' compelling you to type on this forum?"
What? I'm typing here because I prefer it over all my percieved alternatives.
"Wouldn't you rather be ... I guess it doesn't matter what you'd "rather" be doing...?"
The fact that I can only do what I prefer vindicates the deterministic theory. I must do what is higher in my value preferences. How are my value preferences formed? Through the functioning of my mind. What dictates how this functions? The inherent functions of my brain as determined by chemical/molecular formation of the organ and what happens to stimulate it. To accept the doctrine of free will is to deny all the laws of causality that human action is based around.
The fact that I can only do what I prefer
I'm not sure that is a fact.
I don't understand how or why the acceptance that your mind can put physiological stimuli in a preference scale is indicative of "denying all the laws of causality." In other words you are a slave to whatever is directly around you? (As opposed to being a slave of that which is not around you, is not my point). I'd say that the overwhelming majority of conscious thought is based on this, but not all. I'm not arguing that existential constraint doesn't play a factor either, it is just not all of it. Recogintion of one's existential constraints is what allows the mind space to do its thing. Imagine.
You must be defining will itself as etheral, no? Seriously, define 'will'.
What law of causality governs the existence of physical reality in the first place? I can see math formulae all around, but what makes any of it relevant or more reasonable in explaination?
You seem to say, "It doesn't matter. It is as is."
The inherent functions of my brain as determined by chemical/molecular formation of the organ and what happens to stimulate it.
Physiological stimuli need not be the only process of the mind. Being pricked by a needle tells you the same thing, psychologically, that being hungry does, that the body reacts to things around it, indicating preference on a primal level (not being pricked by a needle and not being hungry; pain). It is in no way related to the process of mind during, and even leading to, meditative states, love, self-actualization (art), etc.
To accept the doctrine of free will is to deny all the laws of causality that human action is based around.
Spiritualism, which was not the angle I was coming from, would be a consequence of those same 'forces' of nature that makes fire hurt and Earth spin, ie the human being. Cognition itself must be part of the process of deterministic causation. Thus, everything that stems from it must also be (any and every idea). Acceptance or denial of free will is to admit its existence. If you have free will then all is fine. If you do not, what reasonable explanation could there be for deciding that you do not? You recognize the existential limitation of will and then choose to deny yourself the ability to order your preference scale with it. It seems like a way to distance oneself from morality and the Sade-esque 'pleasure as virtue pinnacle' thing. I cannot remember who, maybe it was Roman Philosopher, said that '...even slaves can be free. While their bodies are shackled they are free to wander in mind.'
To deny free will is to say that the mind is incapable of independent thought (virtually necessitating behaviorist physiological determinism, I suppose).
"I'm not sure that is a fact."
So you deny all aspects of Austrian Economics?
"I don't understand how or why the acceptance that your mind can put physiological stimuli in a preference scale is indicative of "denying all the laws of causality.""
It's not, I'm saying that the fact that the mind does and must do this is proof of determinism. If you deny that it does do this then we have bigger problems on our hands. If you deny that this is directly caused by the physical makeup of the universe then you have implicitly denied the laws of causality.
"I'd say that the overwhelming majority of conscious thought is based on this, but not all. I'm not arguing that existential constraint doesn't play a factor either, it is just not all of it. Recogintion of one's existential constraints is what allows the mind space to do its thing. Imagine."
I believe I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it directly has to do with what I am arguing. I am saying that the mind only functions as a result of its physiological construction, and that therefore its actions are predetermined based upon its own buildup. Do you deny the mind's formation as a result of the actions of the brain?
"Seriously, define 'will'."
The feeling of uneasiness which compels and individual into action.
"What law of causality governs the existence of physical reality in the first place? I can see math formulae all around, but what makes any of it relevant or more reasonable in explaination?
You seem to say, "It doesn't matter. It is as is.""
Sorry, but what are you trying to say here?
"Physiological stimuli need not be the only process of the mind. "
The things which the mind focus on are not all matters dealing with the physical world, indeed I'd argue that most people's concerns are a combination of emotional and more "theoretical" concerns. This is not what I am arguing, what I am arguing is that what the mind does think about is determined upon the physical universe, because the mind exists as a result of actions from within the brain.
" If you do not, what reasonable explanation could there be for deciding that you do not?"
The fact that my mind has decided, based upon its model of the universe, that free will does not exist. Believing that your conceptions and will are formed by independent sources rather than some internal mysticism is in no way contradictory. To give a metaphor: Just because you are looking out of your own eyes does not mean you cannot see yourself in a mirror. Just because the mind is based entirely upon physical cause and effect, does not mean that the mind does not work as we believe it to. We know the ultimate foundation from whence its functions originate, this does not change how we believe that it acts.
" It seems like a way to distance oneself from morality and the Sade-esque 'pleasure as virtue pinnacle' thing. I cannot remember who, maybe it was Roman Philosopher, said that '...even slaves can be free. While their bodies are shackled they are free to wander in mind.' "
Morality is a bunk concept whether or not free will exists. But at any rate, I'd argue that, because we are ignorant of the way in which a deterministic universe would work, what the forces would ultimately be leading to, we would not be able to understand or change what was going on, and therefore although free will would not exist, this would not change the way that we acted.
"To deny free will is to say that the mind is incapable of independent thought "
And? The human mind is subject to cause and effect. Why is it that the rest of the universe is subject to this process, but when the human mind is reached it is suddenly the only thing in the universe which is self perpetuated?
No (I'll explain below)...you said "The fact that I can only do what I prefer." I was not talking about 'rationality'. You are certainly capable of doing things that you do not prefer. You prefer them because there are unwanted alternatives. Your wife could drag you to the botanical garden. You would prefer to be somewhere else, but the mental condition of your self to the physcial and mental condition of your wife retains you. Sure, you prefer the love of your wife, but love takes places in both a mental and physical state. You do not prefer to do certain things in the physical world and even when your wife is not present you may behave in a way as if she is (voluntary self denial). This is entirely mental. Your wife could be dead and you still hindered in physical behavior due to your mental state as well.
I am saying that the mind only functions as a result of its physiological construction, and that therefore its actions are predetermined based upon its own buildup. Do you deny the mind's formation as a result of the actions of the brain?
Okay. I didn't think your point was so broad. Predetermination is a stretch. So we really cannot stop anything in the world from happening? Everything from the Holocaust to things lke 9/11 and the steam engine are predetermined to happen at certain evolutionary stages of ... nature?
Mises. I should have guessed.
"What law of causality governs the existence of physical reality in the first place? I can see math formulae all around, but what makes any of it relevant or more reasonable in explaination? You seem to say, "It doesn't matter. It is as is."" Sorry, but what are you trying to say here?
Look at phi ratio. What gives it dimension?! Scale?!
I mean to say that, physical existence seems to have a finite aspect to it. Did the sequence of natural events that culminate in the creation of the human brain, and thus the debate we are having, just...start? Or is it the consequence of something? As far as I know the big bang has no explanation. (S. Hawkings seems to make little sense to me. "Gravity created time"? And what created gravity when the big bang occured? Time?) Determinism is defeated at its conception since all of physical reality seemed to leap into existence. Now, I do not think that about Earthly nature, but only 'universal' nature. (I would almost like to call it etheral existence) (When I refer to 'existential contraints' I refer to the concession of determinstic fatalism in earthly physiological/biological process. I do not concede that humans have the same mental capacity as a deer).
Determinism is not all encompassing if we are talking about metaphysical things. If we admit, or concede, the point that will is limited by the trappings of physical reality, then what allows for us to theorize things unrelated to physical reality, God, free will, morality, love, justice, philosphy, art, etc.? If we notice throughout history only well off people (people who are wealthy and thus have all or most of their sustenance accounted for) and those that have sworn off (?) material pleasure are the ones who have discussed this. Just as Plato said, 'born a bronze soul, die a bronze soul'.
I'll agree that morality is only a subjective invention. But how can you say we are ignorant of the process in which a deterministic universe works? Aren't you describing that very thing in relation to a non extant free will? Haven't we determined a good number of the basic axioms of existence (except its ultimate)? This also is back to separating the concept of will from existential constraints. If you are contemplating the universe or the very nature of physical reality, something to which you admit ignorance of in its totality, you can still have free will within the subest of physical or existential reality. Your example is outside of that.
And, if morality is totally bunk (I agree with the subjectivity of it, but morality is observed by every society in different capacities. It is a universal social phenomenon) then what is to be made of love, justice, or any other abstraction? (particulary love) Writing off these simply as bunk is ignoring a mental phenomenon that has some basis in physical existence, but some is not at all. And that section that is "not all" has the power to completely dominate cultures. Can that possibly be an illusion? If it is recognized by enough people? Independent to one another or not?
After all, we can observe them, they are us. So you would say that if a rich kid grew up the son of a banker and decided on his 33rd birthday to give away all of his money to random charities, that this behavior is due to the fact that he grew up as the son of a banker and had felt this way his whole life (or even if he didn't his earlier life would be setting the stage for his decision on his 33rd). His pretermined 'fate', his 'kizmet', was 'decided' when he was a zygote and his dad made all of the money and all of the choices he made with the kid. What is the point in 9/11 and the security state, fighting against illegitimate authority, etc.? Our fight for something is met with negation from every angle due to this.
It is a cop out to nihilism in its totality. I expect a nihilistic respons the what 'is below'. ('as above'...)
As I said earlier, the big bang lacks a legitimate cause...(at least as we understand it; the scientists tell us). So, no. The human mind is not the only thing that self perpetuates. Energy itself is a constant recycling of itself, right? It is way outside of our existential perception due to short biological lifespans, but we have nevertheless concluded this through intimation with the process. Time seems to do that, right? Or maybe time is only an existential observation? It hardly seems that time would cease if humanity did.
Neodoxy: "Seriously, define 'will'." The feeling of uneasiness which compels and individual into action.
Are you serious? That's not will. If you define will as something that passive, in your view it doesn't exist.
Take this scenario: A soldier is ordered to use his sniper rifle to kill somebody as 300 yards away. He is given a name, a photo, pinpoints the target's location, doesn't know why he should kill him . . . he's simply following the order. The soldier shoots the man, kills him and fulfills the mission.
Question: did the soldier kill the man by his own free will?
I say yes because he aimed the gun and pulled the trigger. Did anybody else aim the gun and pull the trigger? No. Could the soldier have decided to not shoot the man? Yes. That means he is responsible.
To deny free will is to deny responsibility for action. In this specific example, would you say that the soldier that shot the target (the man he was ordered to shoot) is somehow not responsible for his action? Please explain your approach to this situation and where, if at all, free will occurs.
One of the more interesting ideas about free will is this: if there is no free will, why do we punish those who murder, cheat and steal? They had no choice in the matter.
Just wanted to chime in on this thread:
There is a valid point in the argument that we do not have free will - chemicals and brain interactions are what determines our choices. People who have had their brain altered in a significant way (e.g. a stroke) can be very different people afterwards. I do not agree with Neodoxy that just because we must necessarily choose what we consider to be the best of our options, that we do not have free will. In my opinion, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
However, the counterargument to the chemicals are what determines our decisions is that the chemicals are what we are. The chemicals don't make us choose to do something, we do. The chemicals are us.
Regardless of whether or not you consider it "free will" or not, we all make decisions, and we all interact with one another. Whether or not we have "free will" doesn't change anything practically, but it certainly can be interesting to talk about.
jdkdsgn: One of the more interesting ideas about free will is this: if there is no free will, why do we punish those who murder, cheat and steal? They had no choice in the matter.
It's a non sequitur. It is irrelevant whether or not someone has free will in the matter of punishment. We all make choices. If someone chooses to be a criminal, the rest of us choose to punish him. Besides, if there is no free will, we have no choice in whether or not we punish a criminal.
Gotlucky, you're right, I wanted to share a thought I had which wasn't syllogistic, but more colloquial. I was just pointing out that if there is no free will, laws against individuals would be unjust and the system would break down. I like the last sentence you wrote, too; kudos.
I want to point out, however, that to say "we all make choices" (with the conventional definitions understood) and then to say that it is possible that there is no free will is like arguing against the existence of air - we must use air in order to speak in an argument.
Also, in what way are we positing that "free will" exists? Is it as an organ exists within us, able to be removed? I think free will exists in the same way that our preferences exist - in the mental sphere: unmeasurable, undetectable except through symptoms, etc.
Just my 1/5 of a dime.
jdkdsgn: Gotlucky, you're right, I wanted to share a thought I had which wasn't syllogistic, but more colloquial. I was just pointing out that if there is no free will, laws against individuals would be unjust and the system would break down. I like the last sentence you wrote, too; kudos. I want to point out, however, that to say "we all make choices" (with the conventional definitions understood) and then to say that it is possible that there is no free will is like arguing against the existence of air - we must use air in order to speak in an argument. Also, in what way are we positing that "free will" exists? Is it as an organ exists within us, able to be removed? I think free will exists in the same way that our preferences exist - in the mental sphere: unmeasurable, undetectable except through symptoms, etc. Just my 1/5 of a dime.
Great response, my friend. I find it similar to proving the color yellow. There is no way for us to know something is yellow other than to experience it. There is no mathematical proof of yellow, and nothing circumstantial perhaps aside from actually measuring the energy on a scale of some kind. But try to prove yellow to someone who sees orange, red or a different color, and it's impossible. It's the same with free will.
The mere mention of a debate between free will and determinism, for instance, begs the ontological reality of free will existing. I choose to write these words, and nothing in my environment is causing me to write them. I am writing them from my own volition. Perhaps free will has no physiological substratum that can be measured; I think you're right. I don't think any amount of surgery would somehow compartmentalize and take free will out of a person. You can end the brain, but that doesn't prove much other than that all physiological functions have neurology as their impetus.
Free will can only be measured by its effects. The class debate continued when we talked about punishment, why punish anybody when they can't be held responsible for their actions, but you brought up a good point as did someone else: in a deterministic scenario, even the punishers don't have a say in punishing!
It's a pathetic circle. One peer was saying, "Well, we punish behavior to enforce rules." So I asked who creates the rules, and he said, "Society does." That makes no more sense than saying that roads exist because they have always existed. Society can be broken up into individuals, and somewhere along the way one individual had to have the idea of creating a rule to live by, so on and so forth.
What do we mean by "free will?"
bloomj31: What do we mean by "free will?"
Free will is the ability to individualistically choose one course of action versus any others present.
triknighted: individualistically choose
What does it mean to choose "individualistically?" How else can one choose?
triknighted: one course of action versus any others present
Other courses of action that he/she is aware of at the time or all other possible courses of actions including the ones that he/she may not be aware of at the time?
bloomj31: What does it mean to choose "individualistically?" How else can one choose?
To choose individualistically is to choose an action on an individual basis. It is, perhaps, a redundancy as you're implying.
bloomj31:Other courses of action that he/she is aware of at the time or all other possible courses of actions including the ones that he/she may not be aware of at the time?
Only ones that the individual is aware of, I suppose. Perhaps an example of an effect caused by will power could be unintention, like speeding down a road and not seeing a possum crossing the street and hitting him. The individual would have caused the accident by his own free will, just not intentionally.
So where does that get us?
bloomj31: triknighted: individualistically choose What does it mean to choose "individualistically?" How else can one choose? triknighted: one course of action versus any others present Other courses of action that he/she is aware of at the time or all other possible courses of actions including the ones that he/she may not be aware of at the time?
Ok this is getting tedious. I guess I need to load Fire Fox.
In response to your initial question, to choose individualistically is probably a redundant way of saying it. I just meant choosing something on an individual basis in order to make a distinction between the group think crap that a lot of libs talk about.
triknighted:To choose individualistically is to choose an action on an individual basis. It is, perhaps, a redundancy as you're implying.
Ok, so let's talk about internal constraints.
triknighted: Only ones that the individual is aware of, I suppose. Perhaps an example of an effect caused by will power could be unintention, like speeding down a road and not seeing a possum crossing the street and hitting him. The individual would have caused the accident by his own free will, just not intentionally. So where does that get us?
Here you have admitted that internal constraints exist when one forms a choice. You have said that people can only act based on the information they currently have. Therefore knowledge or the lack thereof can itself be a internal constraint upon choice.
But you have also said that an accidental action is the same as a deliberate one insofar as both are a consequence of my free will.
But can my actions be of my own free will if they were accidental rather than intentional? If I did not know that a possum was in the street, can I really be said to have chosen to hit it? Isn't this just another example of an internal constraint caused by imperfect knowledge?
I think that the idea of "free will" posits that one act according to his or her will. As redundant as this sounds, I think it is important:
Sequence is a key factor in the car accident scenario: at one point in time, I did not want to hit a possum. At another point in time, a possum ran in front of my car (moving 80 mph), and I decided that if I swerved out of the way, my life would be in danger, as opposed to running over the critter and sustaining minor car damage. At the point that I decide to hit the possum, my free will is exercised for the first time in this sequence with respect to the possum.
Unintended consequences, I believe, have no place in a discussion of free will. The will to complete an action is the motivation to attain a certain goal (deterministic in nature). Freedom implies an absence of external constraint. If an accident occurs, without my or another's thinking about it, then no one's free will was exercised. An accident simply occurs if no one decided that it was better to be in the accident than it was to avoid it.
I think it is interesting to note that we can never know if we have free will, because as someone else said, we have constraints on the latitude and depth of our knowledge of the world. Perhaps 99% of the evidence in the universe points to our having zed free will; maybe not. Perhaps our free will is just a way of saying that we work and act within a sphere of influences outside of our control.
This discussion, then, has no conclusion - it becomes a relativistic argument.
@jdkdsgn
If there were no free will, why would laws against individuals be unjust? That's the non sequitur.
In regards to making choices, the point about a lack of free will is to say that we don't really get to choose, it just appears that way. We are a slave to the chemicals that rule us, so we don't really get to choose. The chemicals are what choose.
For the record, I do believe in free will. I am just pointing out an argument against it. As far as I'm concerned, as long as I am able to weigh the pros and cons of any given choice, and then I select the option that is best for me (*gasp* is this human action?), then I consider that I have free will.
bloomj31: Ok, so let's talk about internal constraints. Here you have admitted that internal constraints exist when one forms a choice. You have said that people can only act based on the information they currently have. Therefore knowledge or the lack thereof can itself be a internal constraint upon choice. But you have also said that an accidental action is the same as a deliberate one insofar as both are a consequence of my free will. But can my actions be of my own free will if they were accidental rather than intentional? If I did not know that a possum was in the street, can I really be said to have chosen to hit it? Isn't this just another example of an internal constraint caused by imperfect knowledge?
Well, there is consequentialism (believing that actions are more important than intentions when judging the behavior of an individual) and non-consequentialism (believing that intentions are more important than actions when judging the behavior of an individual). Neither of these, though, have anything to do with the root of free will; only the consequences as they pertain to the rest of society.
Taking the possum example, it's rather simple: the possum died by the effects of my free will regardless of my intentions. Whether or not it can be classified as resulting from free will is futile. We know the cause of it was my action, as for my intention, it is unimportant unless judging the action. So in answer to your query, will power is the impetus for all his actions outside of involuntary reflexes, and if his actions spawned an effect he had no intention of enacting, I don't think he should be blamed for it unless he had prior understanding of where the effects of his actions would manifest.
triknighted: We know the cause of it was my action
There's actually a whole causal chain of actions that lead to that dead opossum. The question here is can we regress all those actions to their source and if so, what is it?
I would say that it's the human brain. So not only do internal constraints exist in terms of the amount of information one has at any given time, but also in terms of how the brain arrives at decisions in the first place. Interestingly enough this is not a process 'you' are in conscious control of either.
Unfortunately this is where I have to bow out of the conversation as I still don't understand the science well enough to explain it satisfactorily. Suffice it to say there's quite a strong argument out there against what we might call "free will" and I encourage you to seek it out.
bloomj31: I would say that it's the human brain. So not only do internal constraints exist in terms of the amount of information one has at any given time, but also in terms of how the brain arrives at decisions in the first place. Interestingly enough this is not a process 'you' are in conscious control of either.
Yeah, that was something I was also talking about with jdkdsgn. But I also said that as long as I am able to weigh the pros and cons of choices, I can say that I have free will. Obviously, changes in someone's brain can actually change their personality drastically, but I think that the statement still holds; just what they consider pros and cons are different.
Someone might say that this is not free will, but I don't think it really matters at that point. We make choices, and that's certainly enough for me.
bloomj31: triknighted: We know the cause of it was my action There's actually a whole causal chain of actions that lead to that dead opossum. The question here is can we regress all those actions to their source and if so, what is it? I would say that it's the human brain. So not only do internal constraints exist in terms of the amount of information one has at any given time, but also in terms of how the brain arrives at decisions in the first place. Interestingly enough this is not a process 'you' are in conscious control of either. Unfortunately this is where I have to bow out of the conversation as I still don't understand the science well enough to explain it satisfactorily. Suffice it to say there's quite a strong argument out there against what we might call "free will" and I encourage you to seek it out.
Science has become more faith than fact lately, and the last I'd heard about free will was one of my pro-government professors telling me that free will doesn't exist and science proved it. He said that decisions are made before we perform the actions, that they located the portion of the brain which shows stimulation of the body before the decision portion is stimulated. I can't say I can refute the science because I don't have the technology to see what happens when inside the brain, but I do know one thing: if I want something done, I do it. Seems to me I can say that I have epistemological certainty that I rule myself and thus hold will power.
As for a root to free will, finding its physical property if there is any, I have no idea; but I must stand by the notion that just because someone cannot explain something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
triknighted:Free will is the ability to individualistically choose one course of action versus any others present.
I think this is a good point to come in to the discussion.
I see the notion of free will as being intrinsically bound up with the notion of choice. Both of these notions, in turn, are bound up with the intrinsic uncertainty of the future. From a strictly deterministic standpoint, choice does not exist, and therefore free will does not exist. Everything next thing we do (ultimately, the next state of every fundamental particle of the universe) is determined by what's happened before. So in that sense, we can no more choose to do the things we do than a planet can choose whether to continue orbiting around a star.
However, our awareness doesn't operate anywhere near the fundamental level of the universe. It operates at a much higher (and necessarily emergent) level. This is why the future is uncertain for us - we lack the vast majority of information needed to actually predict (i.e. calculate) it. That includes the future actions of ourselves as well as others. Given this perceptual uncertainty of the future, we perceive ourselves and others as making choices from one moment to the next - that, from one moment to the next, each of us chooses to perform one action from a set of multiple actions that (perceptually speaking) he could perform.
In other words, free will and choice don't exist as separate fundamental aspects of the universe. They're emergent, perceptual phenomena. But if you ask me, that hardly makes them useless.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: However, our awareness doesn't operate anywhere near the fundamental level of the universe. It operates at a much higher (and necessarily emergent) level. This is why the future is uncertain for us - we lack the vast majority of information needed to actually predict (i.e. calculate) it.
However, our awareness doesn't operate anywhere near the fundamental level of the universe. It operates at a much higher (and necessarily emergent) level. This is why the future is uncertain for us - we lack the vast majority of information needed to actually predict (i.e. calculate) it.
I believe there is no way to predict free will with any certainty. Past behavior of individuals making choices does not guarantee predictability of future behavior, so I agree with you there.
Autolykos: That includes the future actions of ourselves as well as others. Given this perceptual uncertainty of the future, we perceive ourselves and others as making choices from one moment to the next - that, from one moment to the next, each of us chooses to perform one action from a set of multiple actions that (perceptually speaking) he could perform. In other words, free will and choice don't exist as separate fundamental aspects of the universe. They're emergent, perceptual phenomena. But if you ask me, that hardly makes them useless.
That includes the future actions of ourselves as well as others. Given this perceptual uncertainty of the future, we perceive ourselves and others as making choices from one moment to the next - that, from one moment to the next, each of us chooses to perform one action from a set of multiple actions that (perceptually speaking) he could perform.
So do you believe free will = choice?
Also, do you think there is a way to quantify free will by means of identifying its physical properties?
I don't really like the term "free will", but there is actually something to your intuition
The Austrian school, as the name indicates is heavy on Teutonic thought.
Some analogies for illustration can be drawn
we are:
Freud vs behaviorism
Nietzsche vs Russell
Stirner vs Marx
Weber vs Comte
Kant vs Hume
Husserl / Heidegger vs Carnap / Reichenbach
Wittgenstein vs Popper
Dionysus vs Apollo
This is the scientism of "the will" , "der wille zur macht" and der einzige and not the typical mainstream scientism of things we claim can't exist.
This puts us at odds methodologicaly, epistemologically, and ontologically with just about every "mainstream" idea out there; as we claim all their claims are inferior and subservient to us and their conclusions only work as an unlear "mimic" to the correct imperatives of action.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
triknighted:I believe there is no way to predict free will with any certainty. Past behavior of individuals making choices does not guarantee predictability of future behavior, so I agree with you there.
We perceive free will precisely because we can't predict future action with certainty.
triknighted:So do you believe free will = choice? Also, do you think there is a way to quantify free will by means of identifying its physical properties?
Yes, I consider free will and choice to be one and the same. But I don't think they exist as fundamental features of the universe, which is what the question of free will in metaphysics seems to be all about (it's essentially the same as the question of whether man has a soul). Free will is an emergent, perceptual phenomenon given three things: intersubjectivity, the complexity of the human organism, and the uncertainty of the future.
Autolykos: We perceive free will precisely because we can't predict future action with certainty.
Autolykos: Yes, I consider free will and choice to be one and the same. But I don't think they exist as fundamental features of the universe, which is what the question of free will in metaphysics seems to be all about (it's essentially the same as the question of whether man has a soul). Free will is an emergent, perceptual phenomenon given three things: intersubjectivity, the complexity of the human organism, and the uncertainty of the future.
I may be misunderstanding you, but am I right to understand that you mean free will is merely our definition of choices that occur without our prior knowledge of their occuring? Put another way, do you believe that spark of choice, so-to-speak, originates with the human mind, or do you believe it is physiological? Unless, of course, you think the mind is physiological, which would make our willpower, imagination, emotions and anything else subjective due to evolved physiology and, to reference one of your previous points, that eventually we may be able to "predict" one's choices (being that it is physiological, like predicting the planets is merely a matter of knowing a cause to an effect), thereby not making it "free will" but simply "currently unpredictable will," which--along with all the rest of phenomena in the universe--will eventually be able to be explained?
I won't claim to know if there is any physiological property to willpower, but I don't believe there is. I suppose it is the same as believing in a soul, as you put it, or perhaps believing that imagination is somehow metaphysical . . . but I consider willpower to be a metaphysical "property" in that it cannot be bound, cannot be located and cannot be predicted.
triknighted:I may be misunderstanding you, but am I right to understand that you mean free will is merely our definition of choices that occur without our prior knowledge of their occuring? Put another way, do you believe that spark of choice, so-to-speak, originates with the human mind, or do you believe it is physiological? Unless, of course, you think the mind is physiological, which would make our willpower, imagination, emotions and anything else subjective due to evolved physiology and, to reference one of your previous points, that eventually we may be able to "predict" one's choices (being that it is physiological, like predicting the planets is merely a matter of knowing a cause to an effect), thereby not making it "free will" but simply "currently unpredictable will," which--along with all the rest of phenomena in the universe--will eventually be able to be explained?
Yes, I believe the mind is physiological. But I don't think one's choices could be predicted (i.e. calculated) without an enormous amount of additional knowledge. Every part of the universe could have an effect on every other part, however small. In that case, if every part of the universe isn't taken into account, then there's still some margin of error, which means there's no certainty in our hypothetical calculations. But I think it's possible in theory to calculate the future state of the universe, and therefore the future state of a human being.
triknighted:I won't claim to know if there is any physiological property to willpower, but I don't believe there is. I suppose it is the same as believing in a soul, as you put it, or perhaps believing that imagination is somehow metaphysical . . . but I consider willpower to be a metaphysical "property" in that it cannot be bound, cannot be located and cannot be predicted.
I think imagination is entirely physiological. There are feedback loops between areas like the prefrontal cortex (which controls decision making), the hippocampus (which provides working memory), and sensory areas like the visual cortex. I think those feedback loops provide the perceptual phenomenon of the "mind's eye".
Willpower can be readily bound and located - it comes from, and is therefore bound up with, the central nervous system.