No Free Will?

[JABWS]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This discussion may be too philosophical for the usual SDN crowd, but we'll see.

I've been grappling with the issue of free will ever since watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

For those who don't have the time to sit through an hour on youtube, Sam Harris's basic premise is that free will is an illusion. Our conscious mind has no control over the neurophysiology that guides it. In other words, every thought simply appears into our consciousness, not by our own choosing, but from the unknown processes/mechanisms governing our material brains, and thereby our minds.

He gives an expository demonstration which I will briefly describe now.

Imagine a city. It can be any city in the world. Think about it for a second. Now, what did you come up with?

I chose New York. I couldn't have possibly chosen the name of a city that is unknown to me, so that eliminates a large number right off the bat. Three other cities came to mind, namely Boston, Tokyo, and Denver, but I ultimately decided on New York. I was given seemingly limitless latitude to choose whatever I desired. Even though I clearly know of more cities than the four I have mentioned, these were also taken out of play due to the fact that they didn't come to my mind. Now to the point. Did I have any control over what came to my mind? Where did New York, Boston, Tokyo, and Denver come from? I have no idea, they just appeared in my consciousness, presumably as a result of biochemical/physiological processes in my brain. But all of that is below the level of consciousness, and therefore outside of our domain of control. Even a choice, which appears to be made consciously, results from a thought, which like everything else, regresses back to our unconscious neurophysiology.

So with this in mind, is there really such a thing as free will?

P.S. I'm not necessarily espousing this philosophical/scientific viewpoint, but after wrestling with it for awhile, I can't seem to find any fault in the logic. I'd love to hear a counter argument to what I've presented.

 

[Parklife]

Yup, I encountered this in my intro phil class. Maybe there is free will and maybe there isn't. Either way, I like that it's an enigma. If you think about it, even if there isn't any free will and all things are the way they're intended to be, since we don't know they're supposed to be like that...don't we still technically have free will? Illusion or not, we have something don't we?


My professor was a good professor. The best mindset to have is "Well damn. At least I'm not that guy!"

 

[circulus vitios]

Why don't you masturbate? At least it would culminate in something tangible.

 

[JABWS]

Yup, I encountered this in my intro phil class. Maybe there is free will and maybe there isn't. Either way, I like that it's an enigma. If you think about it, even if there isn't any free will and all things are the way they're intended to be, since we don't know they're supposed to be like that...don't we still technically have free will? Illusion or not, we have something don't we?


My professor was a good professor. The best mindset to have is "Well damn. At least I'm not that guy!"

That's an interesting point. If in fact determinism is the reality, then it removes our will, which is defined as "the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action," although I think we still have some semblance of freedom in that we aren't aware of how our lives will unfold. It's almost as if our conscious mind is merely a spectator, while our unconscious brain runs the show.

 

[JABWS]

Why don't you masturbate? At least it would culminate in something tangible.

Thanks for interjecting a completely pointless comment. You are the reason I prefaced this discussion (see first sentence of original post).

 

[mapandterritory]

So with this in mind, is there really such a thing as free will?

I side with the idea that free will is an illusion.

I winced when some girl tried to use Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in a presentation to prove her point, it did not end well. D:

 

[tn4596]

Why don't you masturbate? At least it would culminate in something tangible.

hahaha

btw, how is this discussion relevant to medicine and premeds?

 

[JESSFALLING]

That's an interesting point. If in fact determinism is the reality, then it removes our will, which is defined as "the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action," although I think we still have some semblance of freedom in that we aren't aware of how our lives will unfold. It's almost as if our conscious mind is merely a spectator, while our unconscious brain runs the show.

If this is/were true, then how can we justify holding others accountable for their actions when they do things that we/society deem dangerous or inappropriate?

 

[Yonko Shanks]

if this is/were true, then how can we justify holding others accountable for their actions when they do things that we/society deem dangerous or inappropriate?

+1

 

[JABWS]

hahaha

btw, how is this discussion relevant to medicine and premeds?

I think the idea of free will is relevant to everyone.

Like I said, if this is too deep for you, move along to a different discussion.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

Okay imagaine a city, and New York pops up... and that's it?

Your mind doesn't want to change anything? Add a bridge, a building, a monorail? Adjust the weather, time of day? You don't want to modify at all? Maybe have godzilla come through?

How does art and design take the science we just "see" and turn it into something? By controlling your imagination.

This is akin to having political beliefs, and then never changing them because "you know you're right," and it just leads to lazy thinking (thus, you settle on New York because it's comfortable).

Step into the Danger Zone man!

 

[oGatsby]

Thanks for interjecting a completely pointless comment. You are the reason I prefaced this discussion (see first sentence of original post).

Pointless comment on a pointless debate. Who cares if you have free will? Either we find out we don't have free will, and nothing happens, or we find out we do have free will and nothing happens. It's better to put the best and brightest minds on something useful like reducing air pollution, clean energy, etc.

 

[JABWS]

If this is/were true, then how can we justify holding others accountable for their actions when they do things that we/society deem dangerous or inappropriate?

The video touches on this. Free will forms the basis of our legal system, so it would be a difficult paradigm shift. In short, Harris argues that we wouldn't be able to fault the perpetrator, but would instead consider him/her unlucky due to the brain he/she inherited. This wouldn't eliminate the need to isolate such an individual to ensure the safety of others, but it would remove the rationale for retributive justice.

 

[mapandterritory]

Quit worrying about being able to justify keeping dangerous people behind bars, they're going to stay there for the greater benefit of society.

Pointless comment on a pointless debate. Who cares if you have free will? Either we find out we don't have free will, and nothing happens, or we find out we do have free will and nothing happens. It's better to put the best and brightest minds on something useful like reducing air pollution, clean energy, etc.

I feel an existential crisis coming on...

 

[GeorgiadisMD]

So basically you are saying that we cant change our minds on anything? Everything is set in stone from the moment we are born as to how our brain will choose which thoughts to think?

 

[JESSFALLING]

Pointless comment on a pointless debate. Who cares if you have free will? Either we find out we don't have free will, and nothing happens, or we find out we do have free will and nothing happens. It's better to put the best and brightest minds on something useful like reducing air pollution, clean energy, etc.

Huh? I find this topic very relevant to certain aspects of medicine, thus SDN. My reference above to justice and punishment, for example, is relevant to forensic psychiatry. Yes, sustainability is important, too.....but so is the topic of free will, since it underpins the foundations of our understanding of human existence.

 

[mapandterritory]

So basically you are saying that we cant change our minds on anything? Everything is set in stone from the moment we are born as to how our brain will choose which thoughts to think?

Look more into determinism & quantum mechanics, you might be interested. 😀

 

[JABWS]

Pointless comment on a pointless debate. Who cares if you have free will? Either we find out we don't have free will, and nothing happens, or we find out we do have free will and nothing happens. It's better to put the best and brightest minds on something useful like reducing air pollution, clean energy, etc.

I happen to think the notion of free will is very consequential, and if you had anything more than a superficial understanding of the issue you'd probably agree.

Let me give you an example:

If someone is convicted of murder, and after the fact they are found to have a brain tumor situated in such a position as to give reason to believe it caused the person to act the way they did, then we would likely shift the blame to the biological cause of his/her psychopathy, rather than squarely on the shoulders of that person on the basis of free will. Now what if we could attribute a different murderer's actions to a biological source, despite the fact that they don't have any obvious pathophysiology. If we accept that they have no control over their unconscious brains, then the scenarios are analogous. Granted, both people need to be locked away to ensure the safety of others, but hatred and retributive justice would be unwarranted.

 

[JESSFALLING]

Granted, both people need to be locked away to ensure the safety of others, but hatred and retributive justice would be unwarranted.

Well, if you could remedy the neuropathology, wouldn't it be appropriate to let the fellow with the removed brain tumor go free?

And for the other fellow.... mind control therapy 🙂 ?

 

[OREdwardsJR]

Pointless comment on a pointless debate. Who cares if you have free will? Either we find out we don't have free will, and nothing happens, or we find out we do have free will and nothing happens. It's better to put the best and brightest minds on something useful like reducing air pollution, clean energy, etc.

Get off your high horse.... Many debates are pointless with no tangible results. Everyone likes to involve themselves in abstract discussions.

OP, this is something that I talked to my friend about a while back. We didn't get too deep but he says that he has free will over his thoughts. I believe that we don't have total control over thoughts but if I could come up with a counterargument to your example I would say that your decision to imagine New-York was a free-willed thought.

Imagine a city. It can be any city in the world. Think about it for a second. Now, what did you come up with?

I chose New York. I couldn't have possibly chosen the name of a city that is unknown to me, so that eliminates a large number right off the bat. Three other cities came to mind, namely Boston, Tokyo, and Denver, but I ultimately decided on New York. I was given seemingly limitless latitude to choose whatever I desired. Even though I clearly know of more cities than the four I have mentioned, these were also taken out of play due to the fact that they didn't come to my mind. Now to the point. Did I have any control over what came to my mind? Where did New York, Boston, Tokyo, and Denver come from? I have no idea, they just appeared in my consciousness, presumably as a result of biochemical/physiological processes in my brain. But all of that is below the level of consciousness, and therefore outside of our domain of control. Even a choice, which appears to be made consciously, results from a thought, which like everything else, regresses back to our unconscious neurophysiology.

You decided to consent to the request by thinking of New York. If you told me to imagine a city I could choose to imagine something else, like a pizza or basketball court, but I willed myself to imagine a city. You even stated it yourself, you ultimately decided to imagine New York. Now, it seems to me that you're asking if there is something spiritual that made you choose New York(?). I'm certain you have some kind of affinity for the city. You have had a memorable experience there, your dream medical school may be there, you may live there, just have watched a show based there, etc... There are endless possibilities to explain why, but nonetheless you have some experience/connection with the city which made it stand out in your mind.

When you are asked to imagine a city, it's not automatic that you will choose a real city, but if you do then you are going to choose one that is prominent within your mind. For most people in America they will choose well-known cities like New York, Detroit, Boston if they're not choosing a place that they have a personal connection with. Even if you try to not choose a popular place like that, you still will willfully choose a less-known city (which will still be the most prominent less-known city in your mind).


TL;DR
You're asking where did New York come from? It came from yourself. Every experience that you've had with the city, whether physically or mentally through thought, made it more distinguished within your mind and easier to think of.

 

[JABWS]

Well, if you could remedy the neuropathology, wouldn't it be appropriate to let the fellow with the removed brain tumor go free?

And for the other fellow.... mind control therapy 🙂 ?

Well this discussion does introduce the idea of 'curing' evil, but what enters the conscious mind is determined by so many different factors, both internal and external, that that seems implausible.

 

[oGatsby]

Oh for ****'s sake.

We're not going to get into some pseudointellectual discussion on free will and the ethics of keeping people locked up whether or not they're murderous or based on some ailment that they have.

Yes, you're right, you can make a defense based on a brain tumor. You can make it based on insantiy. You're also unfairly expanding your argument past its original scope. "Do we have free will at all?" to "Well what about in a courtroom, with a brain tumor?" Answer your first question before you ask a new one.

Now then.

Einstein was a determinist. Newton was a determinist. Einstein hated Heisenberg because his uncertainty principle broke that **** down. And even though he was a determinist, when asked whether or not people should still be locked up, there was a resounding "Yes", and do you know why?

Because they were dangers to society, that's why.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/why-quantum-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate

Watch and learn. Yes, there's uncertainty. No things aren't predetermined. Yes, you have free will to an extent. Yes, you can hate a murderer.

QED.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

We do have free will, but we don't have a unified consciousness. The fact that our thoughts and decisions must arise from unconscious patterns doesn't mean we have no control over them. The unconscious mind is like a set of data and programs constantly running in the background to give our conscious minds meaningful context, but this knowledge adds nothing new to arguments over causality than does the fact that our senses ultimately arise from the outside world (unless they don't ; ) ).

To give you another phenomenological experiment, try never deciding anything ever again and see if your unconscious mind can break through from providing you images of cities and get you off the floor to eat a meal. It should be a simple matter to relinquish all control of your thoughts and actions if you never had it to begin with.

 

[JESSFALLING]

Well this discussion does introduce the idea of 'curing' evil, but what enters the conscious mind is determined by so many different factors, both internal and external, that that seems implausible.

Yeah, the latter half of that comment was a joke, from a 'foreseeable future' viewpoint at least 😉

 

[mapandterritory]

Oh for ****'s sake.

We're not going to get into some pseudointellectual discussion on free will and the ethics of keeping people locked up whether or not they're murderous or based on some ailment that they have.

Yes, you're right, you can make a defense based on a brain tumor. You can make it based on insantiy. You're also unfairly expanding your argument past its original scope. "Do we have free will at all?" to "Well what about in a courtroom, with a brain tumor?" Answer your first question before you ask a new one.

Now then.

Einstein was a determinist. Newton was a determinist. Einstein hated Heisenberg because his uncertainty principle broke that **** down. And even though he was a determinist, when asked whether or not people should still be locked up, there was a resounding "Yes", and do you know why?

Because they were dangers to society, that's why.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/why-quantum-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate

Watch and learn. Yes, there's uncertainty. No things aren't predetermined. Yes, you have free will to an extent. Yes, you can hate a murderer.

QED.

I mentioned earlier that another poster would be interested in determinism/quantum mechanics. I sense an appeal to authority, & more discoveries have been made since those great people died. Heisenberg's theory does cast (ha) uncertainty in the future and causes problems for determinists, but it does not do a great deal for the free will debate. Disproving determinism != proving free will. Well, depending on how you define free will.

 

[JABWS]

Get off your high horse.... Many debates are pointless with no tangible results. Everyone likes to involve themselves in abstract discussions.

OP, this is something that I talked to my friend about a while back. We didn't get too deep but he says that he has free will over his thoughts. I believe that we don't have total control over thoughts but if I could come up with a counterargument to your example I would say that your decision to imagine New-York was a free-willed thought.



You decided to consent to the request by thinking of New York. If you told me to imagine a city I could choose to imagine something else, like a pizza or basketball court, but I willed myself to imagine a city. You even stated it yourself, you ultimately decided to imagine New York. Now, it seems to me that you're asking if there is something spiritual that made you choose New York(?). I'm certain you have some kind of affinity for the city. You have had a memorable experience there, your dream medical school may be there, you may live there, just have watched a show based there, etc... There are endless possibilities to explain why, but nonetheless you have some experience/connection with the city which made it stand out in your mind.

When you are asked to imagine a city, it's not automatic that you will choose a real city, but if you do then you are going to choose one that is prominent within your mind. For most people in America they will choose well-known cities like New York, Detroit, Boston if they're not choosing a place that they have a personal connection with. Even if you try to not choose a popular place like that, you still will willfully choose a less-known city (which will still be the most prominent less-known city in your mind).


TL;DR
You're asking where did New York come from? It came from yourself. Every experience that you've had with the city, whether physically or mentally through thought, made it more distinguished within your mind and easier to think of.

New York definitely came to my mind because of past experiences, personal affinity, exposure etc., but that actually supports the argument.

Here's what it boils down to. I may have decided to think of a city, where I could have decided to think about pizza or anything else. But that decision was based on a thought. In fact, the decision is a thought itself, which regresses back into the black hole that is my brain.

Here's another example: I have a glass of water and a glass of coke. I have to make a decision between the two options. Ultimately, when I choose one type of drink, it is because I think to make that decision. But where did the thought come from? It came from my brain, which utilized all of my past experiences to produce a thought, that magically popped into my head. Not to make this too complicated, but I didn't choose to choose a specific drink, the thought (or decision) just came to my mind, through no control of my own.

 

[JABWS]

Oh for ****'s sake.

We're not going to get into some pseudointellectual discussion on free will and the ethics of keeping people locked up whether or not they're murderous or based on some ailment that they have.

Yes, you're right, you can make a defense based on a brain tumor. You can make it based on insantiy. You're also unfairly expanding your argument past its original scope. "Do we have free will at all?" to "Well what about in a courtroom, with a brain tumor?" Answer your first question before you ask a new one.

Now then.

Einstein was a determinist. Newton was a determinist. Einstein hated Heisenberg because his uncertainty principle broke that **** down. And even though he was a determinist, when asked whether or not people should still be locked up, there was a resounding "Yes", and do you know why?

Because they were dangers to society, that's why.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/why-quantum-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate

Watch and learn. Yes, there's uncertainty. No things aren't predetermined. Yes, you have free will to an extent. Yes, you can hate a murderer.

QED.

I'm not expanding my original argument, you missed my point. What I was saying is if we subscribe to the notion of determinism, then there is no difference between someone who murders because of a noticeable brain tumor and someone who murders because of the thoughts that popped into their mind. In both cases, the perpetrator had no control over his actions, as the actions are fueled by thoughts, and the thoughts, once again, regress back into the unconscious mind. Therefore, the issue of free will is consequential because it drastically alters how we perceive criminals, among other things.

 

[JABWS]

We do have free will, but we don't have a unified consciousness. The fact that our thoughts and decisions must arise from unconscious patterns doesn't mean we have no control over them. The unconscious mind is like a set of data and programs constantly running in the background to give our conscious minds meaningful context, but this knowledge adds nothing new to arguments over causality than does the fact that our senses ultimately arise from the outside world (unless they don't ; ) ).

To give you another phenomenological experiment, try never deciding anything ever again and see if your unconscious mind can break through from providing you images of cities and get you off the floor to eat a meal. It should be a simple matter to relinquish all control of your thoughts and actions if you never had it to begin with.

Please elaborate. I feel like we are following the same train of thought, except you're somehow reaching a different conclusion. If our thoughts arise from unconscious patterns, then how do we have control over them.

Sam Harris gives the example of red blood cells. Our body subconsciously decides to produce red blood cells. We (our consciousness) have no control over this process. If, for some reason our bodies stopped producing these cells, you wouldn't say it was because of free will, rather we would be victims of our subconscious, just as I am suggesting a murderer is.

Edit: And to reiterate, I'm not necessarily espousing this view, I simply cannot find anyway out of it.

 

[typicalindian]

Oh boy I wish my life was boring enough to have philosophical debates on SDN :/

to answer OP:

So with this in mind, is there really such a thing as free will?

Yes

 

[sibitrum]

...Therefore, the issue of free will is consequential because it drastically alters how we perceive criminals, among other things.

It might alter how some people perceive them, but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be desirable to incapacitate many in prison so that they are unable to continue to perpetrate additional crimes. If a prisoner fails the psychopath test, it's not really their "fault", but we still don't want them roaming the streets freely.

 

[OREdwardsJR]

New York definitely came to my mind because of past experiences, personal affinity, exposure etc., but that actually supports the argument.

Here's what it boils down to. I may have decided to think of a city, where I could have decided to think about pizza or anything else. But that decision was based on a thought. In fact, the decision is a thought itself, which regresses back into the black hole that is my brain.

Here's another example: I have a glass of water and a glass of coke. I have to make a decision between the two options. Ultimately, when I chose one type of drink, it is because I thought to make that decision. But where did the thought come from? It came from my brain, which utilized all of my past experiences to produce a thought, that magically popped into my head. Not to make this too complicated, but I didn't choose to choose the a specific drink, the thought (or decision) just came to my mind, through no control of my own.

The thought/decision to drink water (for example) came from a process that you willed to happen. You could have decided to drink neither but you decided to choose one of them. Once you made that decision you then went into a thought process where you decided which drink would be best for you at that moment (which tastes better, do I want to drink healthily, is this my last coke, etc...). After you go through that process, which may take a split second, you then come up with a thought/decision. For lack of a better analogy, it's comparable to a math problem. You have formulas in your mind that you must choose between. Once you have chosen the correct formula, out comes a number (or thought) out of seemingly nowhere, but it's actually from a process.

Your thought didn't magically pop into your head, it was a product from a process that you willfully allowed to take place. We may be saying the same thing (as I think we're agreeing that it's a process) but disagreeing on how to describe the result. I don't find anything that comes from a calculated process as magical or coming from nowhere. I may not understand what you're completely saying but I don't see how that thought comes from nowhere.

IDK if you're asking where the thought PHYSICALLY came from, if so then I cannot get detailed into that, but as I currently see it your decision was a willful one.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Free will does not mean freedom from all bodily constraints in thought. Do you not have free will because you can't stop feeling sensations or imagine a square circle or a new color? Your unbidden thoughts and impulses are no more or less a part of you or the external world. The test should not be whether you can decide things in absence of context but whether you can decide things at all.

 

[OREdwardsJR]

Oh boy I wish my life was boring enough to have philosophical debates on SDN :/

Based on what I see from your profile, I would put money on it that it is.

 

[JABWS]

Oh boy I wish my life was boring enough to have philosophical debates on SDN :/

This is the last response I'll give to posters who find this discussion valueless.

Unlike you, I think philosophical debates make my life less boring.

 

[JABWS]

The thought/decision to drink water (for example) came from a process that you willed to happen. You could have decided to drink neither but you decided to choose one of them. Once you made that decision you then went into a thought process where you decided which drink would be best for you at that moment (which tastes better, do I want to drink healthily, is this my last coke, etc...). After you go through that process, which may take a split second, you then come up with a thought/decision. For lack of a better analogy, it's comparable to a math problem. You have formulas in your mind that you must choose between. Once you have chosen the correct formula, out comes a number (or thought) out of seemingly nowhere, but it's actually from a process.

Your thought didn't magically pop into your head, it was a product from a process that you willfully allowed to take place. We may be saying the same thing (as I think we're agreeing that it's a process) but disagreeing on how to describe the result. I don't find anything that comes from a calculated process as magical or coming from nowhere. I may not understand what you're completely saying but I don't see how that thought comes from nowhere.

IDK if you're asking where the thought PHYSICALLY came from, if so then I cannot get detailed into that, but as I currently see it your decision was a willful one.

But it did. It may have been based on previous thoughts, but if you take the regression back far enough, there was an initial thought that came to your mind. I ask you a question, what's the first thing that comes to your mind, before you have any time to follow a 'calculated process'? Do you have any control over the first thing that comes to your mind? Obviously it appeared for a reason, probably because of past experiences and the context within which it was asked, but did you really have control over the thought? Do you ever have control over a thought? You say that you willfully allowed it to take place, but you did not. Sam Harris does a better job of explaining this, and it's sort of abstract, but as soon as you grasp the fact that thoughts, which are the baseline for all mental activity, emerge outside of your control, then the argument for determinism will start to make sense.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

But it did. It may have been based on previous thoughts, but if you take the regression back far enough, there was an initial thought that came to your mind. I ask you a question, what's the first thing that comes to your mind, before you have any time to follow a 'calculated process'? Do you have any control over the first thing that comes to your mind? Obviously it appeared for a reason, probably because of past experiences and the context within which it was asked, but did you really have control over the thought? Do you ever have control over a thought? You say that you willfully allowed it to take place, but you did not. Sam Harris does a better job of explaining this, and it's sort of abstract, but as soon as you grasp the fact that thoughts, which are the baseline for all mental activity, emerge outside of your control, then the argument for determinism will start to make sense.

Everything you say is true, and yet it is inconsequential to an argument over will. Again, these statements apply to all sensations, and yet no one would argue that you lack will because you can't stop seeing or hearing. Go ahead and stop making decisions. If consciousness is simply epiphenomenal, it should make no difference.

 

[OREdwardsJR]

But it did. It may have been based on previous thoughts, but if you take the regression back far enough, there was an initial thought that came to your mind. I ask you a question, what's the first thing that comes to your mind, before you have any time to follow a 'calculated process'? Do you have any control over the first thing that comes to your mind? Obviously it appeared for a reason, probably because of past experiences and the context within which it was asked, but did you really have control over the thought? Do you ever have control over a thought? You say that you willfully allowed it to take place, but you did not. Sam Harris does a better job of explaining this, and it's sort of abstract, but as soon as you grasp the fact that thoughts, which are the baseline for all mental activity, emerge outside of your control, then the argument for determinism will start to make sense.

As I said earlier in the thread, I do agree that some thoughts appear without our will/control. However, I believe that the two examples that you have given are self-willed. Maybe you can give an example that let's me see it in a different way. But if you ask me whether I want a coke or water then the first thing that most likely pops into my mind is "am I thirsty?". From how I see it, I could've also thought "why are you offering me a drink" or I could just have ignored you completely, thus not having that thought. And for me to ignore you then that has to also stem from a process.

I'm supposed to be studying so I'm not going to watch that video right now but to say that we have no control over our thoughts means that we have no control over our actions. People can be talked in or out of doing something, which means that their minds can be changed. If we had no control over our thoughts, AT ALL, then persuasion shouldn't work then, right?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

If we had no control over our thoughts, AT ALL, then persuasion shouldn't work then, right?

Can a computer be programmed? The answer is yes. I'm afraid this is not a successful argument in favor of will.

 

[Temerit]

No joke, a few weeks ago I randomly started thinking about this one night a few weeks ago.

 

[OREdwardsJR]

Can a computer be programmed? The answer is yes. I'm afraid this is not a successful argument in favor of will.

I'm not sure which point you're exactly coming from. Are you saying we can or have been programmed to behave a certain way since birth, thus taking away our free will?

I'm assuming you're stating that a computer can be programmed/persuaded to behave a certain way but does not have freewill which I agree with. However we are free to decide whether or not to succumb to persuasion. A computer has no choice, as long as it is capable of running the program then it will do as it is programmed/told.

 

[mapandterritory]

I'm not sure which point you're exactly coming from. Are you saying we can or have been programmed to behave a certain way since birth, thus taking away our free will?

I'm assuming you're stating that a computer can be programmed/persuaded to behave a certain way but does not have freewill which I agree with. However we are free to decide whether or not to succumb to persuasion. A computer has no choice, as long as it is capable of running the program then it will do as it is programmed/told.

If I interpreted what Cornu Ammonis said correctly, they see the persuasion as a stimulus. So, stimulus --> effect, so the issue now is how we somehow have the ability to determine the outcome for ourselves, rather than it being forced out by the stimulus.

 

[JABWS]

Everything you say is true, and yet it is inconsequential to an argument over will. Again, these statements apply to all sensations, and yet no one would argue that you lack will because you can't stop seeing or hearing. Go ahead and stop making decisions. If consciousness is simply epiphenomenal, it should make no difference.

You seem to have delved into this issue before, yet I'm not quite following you. You can't stop seeing and hearing because those sensations are processed first by the brain, and then involuntarily transmitted to the conscious mind. So could we say that you don't have the free will to hear or see what you want? That is determined by your brain's interaction with external stimuli. In the same vein, you don't have control over what you think, because your thoughts are also transmitted, involuntarily, from your brain to your conscious mind, whatever the stimulus may be for such transmission. Again, we seem to be thinking the same thing but reaching different conclusions. How can you reconcile an epiphenomenal consciousness with free will?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

You seem to have delved into this issue before, yet I'm not quite following you. You can't stop seeing and hearing because those sensations are processed first by the brain, and then involuntarily transmitted to the conscious mind. So could we say that you don't have the free will to hear or see what you want? That is determined by your brain's interaction with external stimuli. In the same vein, you don't have control over what you think, because your thoughts are also transmitted, involuntarily, from your brain to your conscious mind, whatever the stimulus may be for such transmission. Again, we seem to be thinking the same thing but reaching different conclusions. How can you reconcile an epiphenomenal consciousness with free will?

I have phenomenological access to my own experience as a being with will. I was trying to make the point that this professor's argument is nothing new, since thoughts and sensations are really only nominally different.

My argument is that you would not say that lack of control over sensations means a lack of will, so you also can't say that a lack of control over the unconscious means a lack of will. Thoughts and sensations inform us, but they do not command us.

 

[Ironmandoc]

If this is/were true, then how can we justify holding others accountable for their actions when they do things that we/society deem dangerous or inappropriate?

You're falsely equivocating first order principles with second order norms. Regardless of the determinism of the universe, individuals can be held accountable for their actions. If someone does something morally impermissible, we will very rightly punish them accordingly. If the universe is determined, then our punishment is just as determined as their actions. Nothing changes.

If free will exists, here is the universe we live in.

If the universe is determined, here still is the universe we live in.

There is no way, by looking at our universe, to figure out whether or not free will exists or not and since the universe is the only faculty by which we can gain knowledge, we will never know.

It does not matter whether free will exists or not in the same way it does not matter whether god exists. We can never have knowledge of such a thing, so there is no truth of the matter underlying the original question, does free will exist?

 

[Ironmandoc]

I have phenomenological access to my own experience as a being with will. I was trying to make the point that this professor's argument is nothing new, since thoughts and sensations are really only nominally different.

My argument is that you would not say that lack of control over sensations means a lack of will, so you also can't say that a lack of control over the unconscious means a lack of will. Thoughts and sensations inform us, but they do not command us.

Apparently you need to read some continental philosophy. Sensations are not ideas. Thoughts are ideas. One cannot have an idea of "pain", rather only a sensation of pain. You cannot doubt, using the faculty of your senses, that you had a pain. If we cannot speak of doubt, then we certainly cannot speak of knowledge.

Thoughts and sensations are not "only nominally different". Rather they are completely different and should be examined as such.

Read the tractatus!!!!

 

[Ironmandoc]

If I interpreted what Cornu Ammonis said correctly, they see the persuasion as a stimulus. So, stimulus --> effect, so the issue now is how we somehow have the ability to determine the outcome for ourselves, rather than it being forced out by the stimulus.

Here is the better way to look at Cornu's idea...

Prove to me that you have made a decision. It is impossible. You can only prove that you have the perception of making a choice. If the universe is determined you can still perceive your "choices" and "free will" without it existing.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Apparently you need to read some continental philosophy. Sensations are not ideas. Thoughts are ideas. One cannot have an idea of "pain", rather only a sensation of pain. You cannot doubt, using the faculty of your senses, that you had a pain. If we cannot speak of doubt, then we certainly cannot speak of knowledge.

Thoughts and sensations are not "only nominally different". Rather they are completely different and should be examined as such.

Read the tractatus!!!!

I've always regretted dropping that seminar on Wittgenstein, but regardless I would deny this. Thoughts and sensations are both perceived, and only in a vague sense do they appear different. A vision constructed is a vision seen simply without the eye, though I admit we normally have some knowledge that this is how it arose even apart from any deficit in its form.

Physically, too, external and internal sensations share most neural pathways. Where, then, is the difference if both converge in perception? If it its the ultimate cause, then good luck tracing from it to 'you.' If it is just our knowledge of it, that is ephemeral and then also temporal and subject to doubt regardless, or else Descartes would have been the final authority on this.

 

[JABWS]

Here is the better way to look at Cornu's idea...

Prove to me that you have made a decision. It is impossible. You can only prove that you have the perception of making a choice. If the universe is determined you can still perceive your "choices" and "free will" without it existing.

We are definitely on the same page here. Free will seems intuitively obvious because of our perception.

Cornu, you say thoughts and sensations inform us, but they do not command us. What commands us? And how do we take any action, whether mental or physical, without first having the thought to do so?

Keep in mind, will is defined as "the faculty by which a person initiates an action." Can you describe how you would initiate an action without thought?

 

[mapandterritory]

Here is the better way to look at Cornu's idea...

Prove to me that you have made a decision. It is impossible. You can only prove that you have the perception of making a choice. If the universe is determined you can still perceive your "choices" and "free will" without it existing.

I didn't feel it was necessary to bring up my view of free will as an illusion a second time, I would merely be repeating myself (like I am now). I agree with what you said in that proving you made a decision would be impossible, hence what I said before ("how we somehow have the ability to determine the outcome for ourselves").

edit: sorry Cornu, I typed your name as "annu" at first (a product of too much time on forums during the summer)!

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

We are definitely on the same page here. Free will seems intuitively obvious because of our perception.

Cornu, you say thoughts and sensations inform us, but they do not command us. What commands us? And how do we take any action, whether mental or physical, without first having the thought to do so?

Keep in mind, will is defined as "the faculty by which a person initiates an action." Can you describe how you would initiate an action without thought?

You likely could not take action without first having some stimulus. A brain grown in a jar absent of all stimuli would at best have a garbled mess of inchoate impulses as thoughts and its 'will' would be equally degenerate.

Nevertheless, the action you take is up to you. To compare conscious with unconscious initiation of action, consider looking towards a bug that flew into your vision to speaking. The first action is involuntary and is experienced as such, while the second action is voluntary, though it still requires unconscious processing.

I agree with Ironmandoc, but I would say that whether the world is deterministic or not, the perception of will and its actual existence being indistinguishable means they are they are identical since the question of will is only posed to the one perceiving. This is problem I have with epiphenomenalism and physicalism: if perception is just a trick, it is a trick being played on something, which makes it wrong by definition or else an absurdity, an illusion of itself for itself looking at itself with no eyes. The same goes for will.