Autolykos: Willpower can be readily bound and located - it comes from, and is therefore bound up with, the central nervous system.
Willpower can be readily bound and located - it comes from, and is therefore bound up with, the central nervous system.
I respect your opinion, but that's crazy talk. Nobody knows the source of free will, or decision making, or choice, however you want to put it. How can it be "bound and located"? How do you know it "comes from and it therefore bound up with the central nervous system"? Idk mate, seems like an awful burden of proof if you ask me.
I don't pretend to know the origin or source of free will, but I know it exists. I regularly choose things independent of my environment and influence of others. Everyone on here is incredibly detailed and intelligent, but I find that proving it to originate in the CNS and thus that it can be bound is impossible.
I'm curious for an elaboration of what you mean by "willpower can be readily bound and located", Autolykos.
Perhaps our physiology (i.e. CNS) simply enables our free will to be observed. We can study the areas of the brain engaged in the decision making process - the organ which activates a physical reaction to a thought - but is this the location of free will, really? Or is it simply the 'house' which free will resides in for a portion of time?
triknighted:I respect your opinion, but that's crazy talk. Nobody knows the source of free will, or decision making, or choice, however you want to put it. How can it be "bound and located"? How do you know it "comes from and it therefore bound up with the central nervous system"? Idk mate, seems like an awful burden of proof if you ask me.
The central nervous system sends signals to efferent nerves, which lead to muscles. Impulses from efferent nerves cause muscles to contract. Physiologically speaking, all action consists of muscular contractions.
triknighted:I don't pretend to know the origin or source of free will, but I know it exists. I regularly choose things independent of my environment and influence of others. Everyone on here is incredibly detailed and intelligent, but I find that proving it to originate in the CNS and thus that it can be bound is impossible.
I hope the above helps shed light on just how possible it is.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
jdkdsgn:I'm curious for an elaboration of what you mean by "willpower can be readily bound and located", Autolykos.
See my last post.
jdkdsgn:Perhaps our physiology (i.e. CNS) simply enables our free will to be observed. We can study the areas of the brain engaged in the decision making process - the organ which activates a physical reaction to a thought - but is this the location of free will, really? Or is it simply the 'house' which free will resides in for a portion of time?
Where else could free will reside except for the mind?
Autolykos: jdkdsgn:I'm curious for an elaboration of what you mean by "willpower can be readily bound and located", Autolykos. See my last post. jdkdsgn:Perhaps our physiology (i.e. CNS) simply enables our free will to be observed. We can study the areas of the brain engaged in the decision making process - the organ which activates a physical reaction to a thought - but is this the location of free will, really? Or is it simply the 'house' which free will resides in for a portion of time? Where else could free will reside except for the mind?
Autolykos, how do you define "mind"?
Autolykos: triknighted:I respect your opinion, but that's crazy talk. Nobody knows the source of free will, or decision making, or choice, however you want to put it. How can it be "bound and located"? How do you know it "comes from and it therefore bound up with the central nervous system"? Idk mate, seems like an awful burden of proof if you ask me. The central nervous system sends signals to efferent nerves, which lead to muscles. Impulses from efferent nerves cause muscles to contract. Physiologically speaking, all action consists of muscular contractions. triknighted:I don't pretend to know the origin or source of free will, but I know it exists. I regularly choose things independent of my environment and influence of others. Everyone on here is incredibly detailed and intelligent, but I find that proving it to originate in the CNS and thus that it can be bound is impossible. I hope the above helps shed light on just how possible it is.
But describing the physiology of the body while assuming that free will is itself physiological does not prove to me that free will is physiological.
triknighted:Autolykos, how do you define "mind"?
In this context, I'd say I define it as "the central nervous system".
triknighted:But describing the physiology of the body while assuming that free will is itself physiological does not prove to me that free will is physiological.
If "will" is defined as "the impetus to action", and it can be demonstrated that action has a physiological basis, how does the impetus to action not also have a physiological basis? Where else could action come from? How else could it be impelled?
My point was that perhaps action does not have a physiological basis but rather can simply be observed at one point (in this case, in the brain matter) in its process from abstraction to completed action. It's like a man jumping from rock to rock across a river: if I observe him at the fourth rock from the edge for the first time, does that mean he began on the fourth rock?
You're saying that free will is first generated in the brain organ, but isn't that an assumption? Maybe it's a pointless thing to ask, because we end up in a vicious cycle, never sure if we've stumbled upon the ultimate cause of free will. The brain might simply be a middle man, is all I'm saying :)
I don't think Autolykos is talking about the physiological basis for "free will" rather the physiological basis for what we might call the "will to act."
I actually don't think economic science requires "free-willed" actors in order to make sense. We know that people act and that through action they display preferences. Does this process really require the actor's wills to have been completely unconstrained? I'm no economics expert but I don't think so.
It may be fun for philosophical purposes to imagine a metaphysical origin for the "will to act" but I don't think it's necessary for analyzing and understanding market behavior.
jdkdsgn:My point was that perhaps action does not have a physiological basis but rather can simply be observed at one point (in this case, in the brain matter) in its process from abstraction to completed action. It's like a man jumping from rock to rock across a river: if I observe him at the fourth rock from the edge for the first time, does that mean he began on the fourth rock?
Well, how are you defining "action"? Whether he can be said to have begun on the fourth rock or not is really a matter of semantics. But presumably, for a man to jump, he must contract some of his muscles (mainly the ones in his legs). What directly causes those muscular contractions?
jdkdsgn:You're saying that free will is first generated in the brain organ, but isn't that an assumption? Maybe it's a pointless thing to ask, because we end up in a vicious cycle, never sure if we've stumbled upon the ultimate cause of free will. The brain might simply be a middle man, is all I'm saying :)
The ultimate cause of free will is the same thing as the ultimate cause of everything else - whatever that turns out to be. But I wasn't talking about the ultimate cause of free will.
bloomj31:I don't think Autolykos is talking about the physiological basis for "free will" rather the physiological basis for what we might call the "will to act."
That's correct.
bloomj31:I actually don't think economic science requires "free-willed" actors in order to make sense. We know that people act and that through action they display preferences. Does this process really require the actor's wills to have been completely unconstrained? I'm no economics expert but I don't think so.
I don't think "free will" has any meaning without intersubjectivity (including that of one self between the present and the future). In pure physical terms, it's hardly the case that anyone's will is unconstrained. You don't even need any knowledge of neuroscience to figure that out. Can any of us will himself to fly through the air by flapping his arms? Can any of us will himself to run off a cliff without falling down? Can any of us will himself to stroll through a brick wall?
Autolykos: triknighted:Autolykos, how do you define "mind"? In this context, I'd say I define it as "the central nervous system".
Thank you for the straight forward, concise answer. It does bring to mind a number of questions: So the mind = the CNS? So the brain and spinal cord equal the mind? I have a brain and spinal cord, and so do you, so do we have the same mind? If it's a different mind, how so? Do minute structures in the brain and spinal cord distinguish mind from mind? How about retarded people, are their spinal cords and/or brains somehow different, and if restructured, could they somehow lose their impairment? Would you even say they are impaired? Can intelligence also be defined as "the central nervous system"?
I have a brain and spinal cord, and so do you, so do we have the same mind?
We both have bodies, so do we have the same body?
Autolykos: triknighted:But describing the physiology of the body while assuming that free will is itself physiological does not prove to me that free will is physiological. If "will" is defined as "the impetus to action", and it can be demonstrated that action has a physiological basis, how does the impetus to action not also have a physiological basis? Where else could action come from? How else could it be impelled?
I would say that describing the symptoms doesn't define the disease, or in other words, describing the effects doesn't define the cause. Simply because B is a certain way doesn't guarantee that you know how A is. Take a simple example: if I saw a woman with huge boobs walking down the road, could I say I know with certainty that her mother had huge boobs? I'd think not. You wouldn't know unless you saw the mother. Tell me what specifically free will is and how it originates, and not merely its effects, and we will know what free will is. In other words, induction is not deduction.
Do you think that your mind exists somewhere outside of your physical body?
bloomj31: Do you think that your mind exists somewhere outside of your physical body?
Do you think there's an outside and an inside to your physical body?
If you choose action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you are person X. Why are you person X? Because of the decisions you made at time T-1, when you were person X-1. Why were you person X-1 then? Because of the decisions you made at time T-2, when you were person X-2. Follow the causal chain backwards, and you eventually reach the point: Why were you person X"no longer a baby" at time T"no longer a baby"? Because of 'decisions' made at time T"no longer a baby"-1, when you were person X"no longer a baby"-1. But, when you were person X"no longer a baby"-1, you were still a baby, baby being here defined as a human too young to make conscious choices. Hence, if you trace the causal chain back far enough, you'll find that any action you take now as person X is ultimately the result of influences beyond your conscious control. You can choose how to act at any given moment, but whatever decision you make can invariably be traced backwards to show external influences as the ultimate cause. Hence, a strong state is vital to ensure that people get the most positive influences possible in the early stages of their development, rather than being left floating adrift in the good-parenting lottery, facing the very real possibility of having their whole life's trajectory derailed due to having their early childhood flayed by the pathetic child-rearing attempts of incompetents! :O
I wouldn't say so, no.
The State: If you choose action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you are person X.
If you choose action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you are person X.
I have to stop you right there. Let me rephrase this: "Person X chooses an action because he is person X." Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? You can plug quite a bit into that equation that I'm willing to bet you would disagree with. For instance: "Minorities are lazy because they are minorities."
Hmm. . . .
The correct response to your original sentence would be as follows: "If you choose Action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you choose to."
triknighted:Thank you for the straight forward, concise answer. It does bring to mind a number of questions: So the mind = the CNS? So the brain and spinal cord equal the mind? I have a brain and spinal cord, and so do you, so do we have the same mind? If it's a different mind, how so? Do minute structures in the brain and spinal cord distinguish mind from mind? How about retarded people, are their spinal cords and/or brains somehow different, and if restructured, could they somehow lose their impairment? Would you even say they are impaired? Can intelligence also be defined as "the central nervous system"?
We each have a central nervous system which is distinct in space (if not also in time), so no, I wouldn't say we have the same mind at all.
The word "intelligence" can be defined as anything one wants.
triknighted:I would say that describing the symptoms doesn't define the disease, or in other words, describing the effects doesn't define the cause. Simply because B is a certain way doesn't guarantee that you know how A is. Take a simple example: if I saw a woman with huge boobs walking down the road, could I say I know with certainty that her mother had huge boobs? I'd think not. You wouldn't know unless you saw the mother. Tell me what specifically free will is and how it originates, and not merely its effects, and we will know what free will is. In other words, induction is not deduction.
You seem to be changing the context. I was posting in the context of your claim that willpower - which I don't consider to be the same as free will - cannot be bound, located, or predicted. As I said before, I consider willpower to be bound and located in the central nervous system. I don't see how "be bound" or "be located" necessarily connotes deductive proof.
The State:If you choose action A now, at time T, why do you do so? Because you are person X. Why are you person X? Because of the decisions you made at time T-1, when you were person X-1. Why were you person X-1 then? Because of the decisions you made at time T-2, when you were person X-2. Follow the causal chain backwards, and you eventually reach the point: Why were you person X"no longer a baby" at time T"no longer a baby"? Because of 'decisions' made at time T"no longer a baby"-1, when you were person X"no longer a baby"-1. But, when you were person X"no longer a baby"-1, you were still a baby, baby being here defined as a human too young to make conscious choices. Hence, if you trace the causal chain back far enough, you'll find that any action you take now as person X is ultimately the result of influences beyond your conscious control. You can choose how to act at any given moment, but whatever decision you make can invariably be traced backwards to show external influences as the ultimate cause. Hence, a strong state is vital to ensure that people get the most positive influences possible in the early stages of their development, rather than being left floating adrift in the good-parenting lottery, facing the very real possibility of having their whole life's trajectory derailed due to having their early childhood flayed by the pathetic child-rearing attempts of incompetents! :O
That assumes that a strong state will necessarily "ensure that people get the most positive influences possible in the early stages of their development". I categorically challenge this assumption.
Autolykos: triknighted:I would say that describing the symptoms doesn't define the disease, or in other words, describing the effects doesn't define the cause. Simply because B is a certain way doesn't guarantee that you know how A is. Take a simple example: if I saw a woman with huge boobs walking down the road, could I say I know with certainty that her mother had huge boobs? I'd think not. You wouldn't know unless you saw the mother. Tell me what specifically free will is and how it originates, and not merely its effects, and we will know what free will is. In other words, induction is not deduction. You seem to be changing the context. I was posting in the context of your claim that willpower - which I don't consider to be the same as free will - cannot be bound, located, or predicted. As I said before, I consider willpower to be bound and located in the central nervous system. I don't see how "be bound" or "be located" necessarily connotes deductive proof.
I'll start backwards. Does induction = deduction? Yes or no?
You seem to be implying (based on your impatient "Yes or no?") that I somehow implied that induction does equal deduction. So I'd like you to point out just where you think I implied that.
I'm not sure what you're asking for Triknighted. Are you asking for the universal ultimate cause of the human brain?
Also as an aside, the State's post implies that children are essentially blank slates whose parents initially program them. I'm reading a book right now that challenges that notion.
Autolykos: You seem to be implying (based on your impatient "Yes or no?") that I somehow implied that induction does equal deduction. So I'd like you to point out just where you think I implied that.
First answer my question.
Fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - for now.
I don't consider induction to be the same as deduction.
Autolykos: Fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - for now. I don't consider induction to be the same as deduction.
I was distracted by the Achilles thread, no joke. I forget the question. I was going back through the dialogue, what was it again? I'll be happy to answer.
That Achilles thread I started took off! I can't believe how many people have responded to it. This is a fun site.
It's the question you asked right here.
Autolykos: It's the question you asked right here.
About the changing of contexts? I was just putting it a different way for rhetorical and comical purposes. But basically, my critique was that in explaining the physiology of the body and, say, from point A onward, you're not telling me what the actual impetus is. What causes A?
I don't know if it can be defined, described or even conceptualized. I believe that willpower is a ding an sich, to use a Kantian term. I believe that people choose to do things simply because they choose to do those things. While environment can incentivize, physiology can limit perspective and nature can compel, willpower is separate, something unique, possibly without a physiological cause, though I don't believe there's any way to know.
triknighted:About the changing of contexts?
Surely you can see that what you asked me had little, if anything, to do with changing context. You simply asked me whether induction is equal to deduction.
triknighted:I was just putting it a different way for rhetorical and comical purposes.
Well that was lost on me. What rhetorical and comical purposes are you talking about?
triknighted:But basically, my critique was that in explaining the physiology of the body and, say, from point A onward, you're not telling me what the actual impetus is. What causes A?
Like I said before, if you're looking for the truly ultimate cause, then that is the same as the ultimate cause for literally everything. I see willpower as the proximate cause of action. Sorry if that wasn't clear before - I didn't think you were talking about ultimate cause.
triknighted:I don't know if it can be defined, described or even conceptualized. I believe that willpower is a ding an sich, to use a Kantian term. I believe that people choose to do things simply because they choose to do those things. While environment can incentivize, physiology can limit perspective and nature can compel, willpower is separate, something unique, possibly without a physiological cause, though I don't believe there's any way to know.
If you feel unable or unwilling to define "willpower", then I don't see how you can legitimately use it in any discourse.
Autolykos: triknighted:I respect your opinion, but that's crazy talk. Nobody knows the source of free will, or decision making, or choice, however you want to put it. How can it be "bound and located"? How do you know it "comes from and it therefore bound up with the central nervous system"? Idk mate, seems like an awful burden of proof if you ask me. The central nervous system sends signals to efferent nerves, which lead to muscles. Impulses from efferent nerves cause muscles to contract. Physiologically speaking, all action consists of muscular contractions.
Therefore what? Does a fly have free will?
FlyingAxe: Autolykos: triknighted:I respect your opinion, but that's crazy talk. Nobody knows the source of free will, or decision making, or choice, however you want to put it. How can it be "bound and located"? How do you know it "comes from and it therefore bound up with the central nervous system"? Idk mate, seems like an awful burden of proof if you ask me. The central nervous system sends signals to efferent nerves, which lead to muscles. Impulses from efferent nerves cause muscles to contract. Physiologically speaking, all action consists of muscular contractions. Therefore what? Does a fly have free will?
FlyingAxe:Therefore what? Does a fly have free will?
Yes, I'd say it does.
The State:Autolykos, if one takes as a summary of successful childrearing the common wisdom "spare the rod, spoil the child", then it becomes obvious that the state is best placed to raise the nation's children.
I don't take that as a summary of successful childrearing.
What do you mean by "nation"?
The State:See, the state has a mighty method to ensure children behave and develop correctly: law.
What do you mean by "law"? What do you mean by "behave and develop correctly" - that is, what do you think is "correct behavior and development"?
The State:policing [...] of laws
What do you mean by this?
The State:the State has successfully protected against the spread of drug use and illegal immigration
You're going to have to troll harder than this.
The State:Children could even be taught to adhere to the non-aggression principle that libertarians all love so much, by virtue of the state child-rearing system ensuring that they face swift retribution for any aggressive actions they engage in. This would also break the cycle of violence that plagues so many families.
I'd love to see your attempt at substantiating this.
The State:Plus, if children were integrated into the prison system then they'd learn vital assembly-line skills that would allow the economy to better compete with China's in future, and their work there would be a helpful contribution towards beating the trade deficit.
And also this.
Check out 'Discovery of Freedom' by Rose Wilder Lane. One of the thesis' of the book is the difference between people whom believe in human freedom versus Authority (in the form of Government).
If one did not believe in free will or free choice in a metaphysical sense, it makes sens that that value translated to the political realm would mean one doesn't beleive in human freedom, which could also mean one doesn't accept concepts of responsibility for one's actions (which we know the left doesn't, constantly saying 'society' is responsible, not the committer of a crime, etc.).
This is a joke, right?
The State:Autolykos, if you don't support "spare the rod, spoil the child", maybe you think a policy of benign neglect is best for the nation's children? If so, you can't deny the state is in best placed to implement such a policy: just look at the neglected condition of much of the nation's infrastructure. By 'nation', I mean the geographical area over which the state enjoys a monopoly on violence. By 'law', I mean the ability of the state to maim, kill or imprison anybody for any act the state deems unlawful. By "correct behaviour and development", I mean behaving like a homo sapien and developing correctly into an adult homo sapien, not for instance a Martian, monkey, wolf-man, Godzilla or Nephilim. Behaving like a human being, not being a giant lizard and terrorising Tokyo. Surely even you can't deny that a child raised under the care of the state would not develop in such an incorrect manner, would not suffer such metamorphoses. By policing of laws, I mean that if for instance a law was passed "children who tease other children will spend 6 months in jail", most private parents wouldn't support such a law, wouldn't report children who broke it, so it'd be difficult to enforce. If however all children were raised by public parents, agents of the state who could be paid to police the law (report children who break it), then it'd be much easier to enforce such a law. If you don't think the state has successfully protected against the spread of drug use, ask yourself: without laws against it, what would stop drug use from continuously increasing in popularity as societal time-preferences fell, until it was at over 90% like alcohol use? Nothing. So, the fact that well under 90% of the population regularly use illicit drugs can be taken as a sign of the success of the policy. As for illegal immigration, if government has no power to stop it, then why is it much less of a problem in Washington DC, where the central government is headquartered, than in far away states like Texas, where the Federal Government has relatively less influence? Well, if children were beaten by their carers every time they engaged in aggression, they'd be conditioned to experience a fear response every time they considered an aggressive act, no? Hence, they'd be less likely to aggress in future :) Surely if there's one thing the continual existence of the state has proven, it's that the best way to stop violence is with more violence. Having incarcerated children provide low-cost labour would allow America to become a low-cost producer and steal China's competitive advantage in that area, especially now Chinese labour costs are rising. This child labour, where previously there was none, would represent a net increase in manufactured goods produced by the nation, and assuming there was an overseas market for these goods this would translate into a net increase in exports, and hence a reduction in the trade deficit. If this was combined with inflationary policy to reduce international the purchasing power of the nation's consumers, bringing it closer to that of Chinese consumers, then this would result in a decrease in imports which would also contribute towards reducing the trade deficit.