tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post961398635051529126..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Where's my free will?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-15257615829403031442010-08-04T19:15:17.592+12:002010-08-04T19:15:17.592+12:00"Human free will may be among the natural mec..."Human free will may be among the natural mechanisms in existence." <br /><br />So when Rand described it as a none-mechanical process... she was wrong? Or just jumping the gun a bit? If it is a mechanism, then it's deterministic, that's what deterministic means. Determinism means decisions are a result of energy and matter interacting in the same way they do throughout the rest of reality, "free will" says they're made by magic.<br /><br />As for your other points, mine remains. You are making a very bold claim, trying to prove the existence of something without actually offering any evidence beyond your own feelings and dependence on the concept. Determinism is to free will what atheism is to theism. I don't have to justify anything other than my rebuttal of your evidence.David S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-20144954970741842542010-08-04T12:16:33.845+12:002010-08-04T12:16:33.845+12:00Everything in nature has a mechanism. Determinism ...<i>Everything in nature has a mechanism. Determinism simply accepts that fact applies to human decision making. Free will is a concept that implies human decision making exceeds this. If it does exist, it is unique and unprecedented. So what evidence do we have for such a bold claim?</i><br /><br /><br />That's rationalism.It does not follow.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Introspection" is a subjective experience, which for me has only strengthened the determinist argument.</i><br /><br /><br />Introspection is not subjective not more than anything else.<br /><br /><br /><i>We choose constantly. It's because we choose, and because of the nature of choice, that "free will" is madness. To choose is to choose for reasons. It is absurd to speak of a willed choice outside of the context of reasons for choosing, especially not in the case of moral choices.</i><br /><br />The argument above just starts with an assumption, taken out of context, which says tthat everthing in nature has a "mechanism." So what? It does not follow that man lacks free will. And again, such a claim contradicts reality.Trevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-42127345230197764122010-08-04T09:48:23.053+12:002010-08-04T09:48:23.053+12:00@ David S
PC did not use morality to prove the exi...@ David S<br />PC did not use morality to prove the existence of free will. He was arguing that the end point of the determinist position negating free will and personal responsibility is incredulous horse shit. It is later in his post that he empirically describes the reality of free will.<br /><br />If it is true that “everything in nature has a mechanism”, is it not also possible that the human neurological system has processes of volitional conciousness that have the faculty of self directed focus of thought and self directed behaviour; that this is among the natural mechanisms that have evolved?<br />You say “Determinism simply accepts that fact applies to human decision making. Free will is a concept that implies human decision making exceeds this.”<br />Not necessarily. Human free will may be among the natural mechanisms in existence.<br />“If it does exist, it is unique and unprecedented”. <br />Many discoveries are unique and unprecedented.<br />“People may have varying degrees of proficiency when it comes to determining a conscious understanding of their environment, but saying it's not automatic is like saying it's supernatural.”<br />Certainly some of our neurological functions are automatic. The non-automatic ones such as deliberately intensifying concentration on a particular issue and self directing behaviour are not necessarily supernatural. We can naturally have the mechanisms that enable us to do them.<br /><br />You say “I think it's reasonable to believe something if the amount and quality of evidence meets the magnitude of the claim being made.”<br />And did you come to this conclusion by a process of deliberately focused thought and then opting to support that position? Or was it that “the product of blind and random chance will produce anything resembling truth on such matters” as proposed by Berend?<br /><br />“If you tell me there is a god, then give me a 2000 year old book written in a long dead language, or any of the other "arguments" for such a being, I'd say you're deluding yourself.”<br />Are people who delude themselves doing so purely as a result of determined mechanisms?<br />Can they undelude themselves if they choose to do so?<br /><br />“We are self aware, but self awareness does not prove the existence of free will.”<br />PC did not argue that the fact that we can be self aware proves the existence of free will. He argued that we can use self awareness to observe free will in action. Though it is also true that a deliberate effort to introspect is itself and example of an act of free will.<br /><br />“Isn't "volitional consciousness" just a fancy way of saying "Free will"?”<br />Hmm, yes I think it is.Sally O'Brienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06166572104269217027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-77537422552549005502010-08-03T19:06:16.250+12:002010-08-03T19:06:16.250+12:00You haven't explained or justified anything wi...You haven't explained or justified anything with this post. <br /><br />Firstly, Your first tirade seeks to use morality to justify it's existence. A is A though, the argument that it sounds like "horseshit" to you because people are not truely "responsible" for their actions if free will does not exist, no more justifies free will's existence any more than the argument that god must exist because without god morality cannot exist. Facts must stand apart from such arguments. Calling people "weaklings" doesn't change reality.<br /><br />Everything in nature has a mechanism. Determinism simply accepts that fact applies to human decision making. Free will is a concept that implies human decision making exceeds this. If it does exist, it is unique and unprecedented. So what evidence do we have for such a bold claim?<br /><br />"that this great thinking engine resting on top of our shoulders does not turn itself on automatically." <br /><br />Sure it does. People may have varying degrees of proficiency when it comes to determining a conscious understanding of their environment, but saying it's not automatic is like saying it's supernatural.<br /><br />But then, that's exactly what free will is, a supernatural belief.<br /><br />I think it's reasonable to believe something if the amount and quality of evidence meets the magnitude of the claim being made. If you say your favourite colour is red, I'll probably believe you, it's not that important, the fact that you're telling me it's red is evidence enough. If you tell me there is a god, then give me a 2000 year old book written in a long dead language, or any of the other "arguments" for such a being, I'd say you're deluding yourself.<br /><br />The arguments for the existence of free will, a claim which is nearly as bold, are pretty weak.<br /><br />There's the "introspection" argument. "Introspection" is a subjective experience, which for me has only strengthened the determinist argument.<br /><br />Then there's the ever popular "You're arguing with me therefore you MUST have free will" argument, to which I'd point out that a process of sociological evolution could easily explain why we have debates about the nature of reality, it does aid our own survival after all.<br /><br />And of course the "But without free will my morality falls apart" argument, which is pretty irrelevant, reality does not bend to our will alone, one of the only things objectivists adhere to which I agree with, yet apparently abandon it whenever it suits them.<br /><br />We are self aware, but self awareness does not prove the existence of free will. I turn my thoughts inward quite often. What I find when I do so is that I'm often able to understand why I make the decisions I make, which often modifies my behavior. So self awareness does influence behavior, but this does mean that my actions are not governed by a natural process.<br /><br />Isn't "volitional consciousness" just a fancy way of saying "Free will"? You've just replaced "free" with "volitional" and "will" with "consciousness". I suppose using bigger words would confuse some people, and sucker others into thinking there's a substantiative argument where none really exists.David S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80175224861656980192010-08-03T18:01:42.212+12:002010-08-03T18:01:42.212+12:00PC: If this free will of yours is not part of the ...PC: If this free will of yours is not part of the physical world how does it influence the physical world? If your free will is part of the physical world, how is it not caused by prior physical events rather than the mystical 'free will' as you claim?Dave Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990096427496982088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2236531009986535602010-08-03T15:32:04.364+12:002010-08-03T15:32:04.364+12:00Lucia, whether the agent is physical or non-physic...Lucia, whether the agent is physical or non-physical has no bearing on the logical impossibility of free will. Square circles don't exist, whether they're physical square circles or spiritual square circles.<br /><br />We choose constantly. It's because we choose, and because of the nature of choice, that "free will" is madness. To choose is to choose <i>for reasons</i>. It is absurd to speak of a willed choice outside of the context of reasons for choosing, especially not in the case of moral choices.<br /><br />No one is saying we do not choose. I'm certainly not in the post to which Peter links. But when we choose, we choose for reasons. Our reasons shape our choices. Some of those reasons will be based in genetic or biological things (we are "programmed", as you call it, to be hungry/want food when our bodies run low on energy), or social (we can be "programmed" by our environment to want to avoid displays of public nudity), or religious (one may want to please God), or whatever.<br /><br />And we cannot have chosen our reasons. Or, if we did, the question arises: "What were your reasons for choosing to have that reason?"<br /><br />The question can be asked of any physical agent or any spiritual agent, or any agent at all, because to be an agent is to choose, and to choose is to choose for reasons, and one does not choose one's reasons.<br /><br />And people implicitly understand that people act for reasons. They just like to believe there's some element of choice that is somehow "free" of external factors which can then be held "accountable" for choosing incorrectly/sinfully. (In actual fact, what we tend to call "morally bad" or "evil" choices are choices mad for morally bad or evil <i>reasons</i>.)<br /><br />I don't think the impossibility of free will stops us from being able to hold people accountable for their actions, however. Depending on what is meant by that.Ryan Sproullhttp://www.statehighwayone.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-88561011020102485642010-08-03T13:14:08.833+12:002010-08-03T13:14:08.833+12:00If we are just physical machines, how could we eve...If we are just physical machines, how could we ever choose anything. Anything we choose would have to have already been pre-programmed by our genetics, so there is no real choice, only programming.<br /><br />Much like a robot could never freely choose anything thing - any choice would just be a result of pre-programmed choices. Those that weren't pre-programmed would result in error conditions or system shut down. <br /><br />Of course we are not like robots, and we have the ability to choose beyond our genetic programming, therefore consciousness can't be only physical.Lucia Mariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10485990994973953860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80200404606677353622010-08-03T13:01:56.115+12:002010-08-03T13:01:56.115+12:00Why is there meaning Lindsay?Why is there meaning Lindsay?Berend de Boerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433622686361556089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7534039178505798592010-08-03T12:56:55.329+12:002010-08-03T12:56:55.329+12:00I was going to say something flippant about most M...I was going to say something flippant about most Most Kiwis thinking free will is something you get from the Public Trust but I got stuck on Berend's comment. What does it mean?Lindsay Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-65118071809242493182010-08-03T12:56:48.962+12:002010-08-03T12:56:48.962+12:00I'm not sure I misunderstood it PC. My next ch...I'm not sure I misunderstood it PC. My next choice might be that God doesn't exist...<br /><br />But eh, how come we can trust what random processes have brought together?Berend de Boerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433622686361556089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11370442642209185432010-08-03T12:47:42.177+12:002010-08-03T12:47:42.177+12:00"My next free will decision is going to be no..."My next free will decision is going to be not to sleep for the next 256 hours."<br /><br />You've misunderstood free will, my friend. Free will means "choice," not the guarantee your choice will bear any fruit.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-17096084251977900612010-08-03T12:37:13.088+12:002010-08-03T12:37:13.088+12:00PC: instead, to identify that we do have the facul...PC: <i>instead, to identify that we do have the faculty of free will all we have to do is introspect—to apply our cognition inwards (to choose to) and watch ourselves making choices. </i><br /><br />What guarantee do we have that the product of blind and random chance will produce anything resembling truth on such matters?<br /><br />My next free will decision is going to be not to sleep for the next 256 hours.Berend de Boerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433622686361556089noreply@blogger.com