Ouroboros Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Good morning Hans. Good morning Brian, Coffee hasn't reached my veins yet, so my response is probably a bit ... dreamy? As you suggest, we might withhold consideration of the question of responsibility until the parameters are a bit more defined. You begin to see the issue, though, I presume. The intro to this thread suggests free will might be essential because of the responsibility/accountability issues raised by its absence. Yes. I agree. If it's true that Free Will isn't so free after all, we have to start reaching for new concepts of responsibility/accountability, or maintain the illusion of free will. That's why I think this kind of knowledge is not for everyone to understand. It requires some time for a person to get accustomed to before they can truly accept it. I don't everyone is ready for this kind of knowledge. You have to grow into it, if you will. In the absence of free will, is there such a thing as personal responsibility? Or is that just part of the illusion as well? From within the illusion, can we who are informed regarding the self-deception then in good conscience hold our children 'responsible' when such is just a continuation of the illusion (lie). It begins to unravel, does it not? Would you discipline your child for something over which they had no control? Would you teach them the lie that you had decided to embrace? You see, first you have to analyze what you mean with "discipline." What is your intentions with a discipline? Is it for your own gratification and revenge, or is it to teach them something? If it is for your revenge, then I consider discipline completely wrong. We can't base punishment on an eye-for-an-eye anymore, but it should be for other reasons. I discipline my kids so they learn that their actions are "wrong." And the reasons why they're wrong is another question (moral etc). But the discipline should be for the purpose of "re-programming," so the next time they have less desire to do the bad thing. Right? Isn't that why we should discipline them? For the benefit of them learning, and in effect we are changing their Will to conform to the "good" behavior? I can today treat my kids with a lot less anger and frustration, because I don't follow the emotions anymore in this area, but what makes sense, and what gives (hopefully) the best outcome. When it comes to the law we have to add a couple more aspects to this though. Discipline of children is a very simple form of justice. A presumed philosophical essentiality for free will's illusion provides no mechanism to avoid the insanity such deliberate self-deception might entail. Nor does it offer excuse or remedy for the inevitable pain it will introduce into the lives of those with whom we intimately interact. I'm not sure I follow you there. I don't feel insane, but I could be mistaken. Am I? We can entertain such wonderings for ourselves, I think; no harm, no foul. I don't think we can actually live them out without harming others; something a father would not deliberately do to his children. No? Because you have to change your views in other areas to as an affect of this shift, you shouldn't have to live a life where you harm others, but you can become more efficient. You know the Bible saying: you can't fill old bags with new wine. The same goes here. It's a paradigm shift, not only one little adjustment. It almost seems as if we're reaching for a material explanation for a non-material phenomenon. Meta-physical is non-material already, but it's "born" from the material. The mind is more than just matter, but it's not supernatural. Have a great left-coast day (sunny with a high today of 85) while I traipse through the muck to work under gray skies (high today of 34)!Buddy It's starting to get warmer here, and of course I managed to stay away from any cold or flu this season... until friggin NOW... *sniffle* *cough* *cough* And school started again yesterday. One of the writers for the school paper suggested I should write for it too... Because we talked a little about religion, and she thought I had interesting ideas. It's probably a bad idea. Too revolutionary and controversial, they might stone me with pencils and binders and then burn me on pile of obsolete books! No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 ... I think this kind of knowledge is not for everyone to understand. It requires some time for a person to get accustomed to before they can truly accept it. I don't everyone is ready for this kind of knowledge. You have to grow into it, if you will. ... Would you discipline your child for something over which they had no control?...You see, first you have to analyze what you mean with "discipline." ... A presumed philosophical essentiality for free will's illusion provides no mechanism to avoid the insanity such deliberate self-deception might entail. Nor does it offer excuse or remedy for the inevitable pain it will introduce into the lives of those with whom we intimately interact. I'm not sure I follow you there. I don't feel insane, but I could be mistaken. Am I? We can entertain such wonderings for ourselves, I think; no harm, no foul. I don't think we can actually live them out without harming others; something a father would not deliberately do to his children. No? Because you have to change your views in other areas to as an affect of this shift, you shouldn't have to live a life where you harm others, but you can become more efficient. You know the Bible saying: you can't fill old bags with new wine. ... Interesting rejoinder, Hans. Sorry to hear you're not feeling well, by the way. Perhaps a day off and a squirt or two of Zicam would help. And a bottle of Nyquil. So free choice is an illusion, information that isn't for everyone. Serious question: do you really think someone can live according to a lie, one of which they are fully aware and are fully persuaded that it is not the truth? It's no small issue either; it's foundational. I suspect that if someone were to genuinely pull it off, they would be the first in the history of philosophy to do so without some intrusive measure of behavioral disorder (derangement). I've gone back through your suggestions of how it might be done, but can't find a real path through. Even pretending to accept 'the illusion' and act in consonance with it is, after all, a choice of the wil. Perhaps there is a measure of freedom for our will after all. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 So free choice is an illusion, information that isn't for everyone. Serious question: do you really think someone can live according to a lie, one of which they are fully aware and are fully persuaded that it is not the truth? It's no small issue either; it's foundational. I suspect that if someone were to genuinely pull it off, they would be the first in the history of philosophy to do so without some intrusive measure of behavioral disorder (derangement). No. I don't agree. Unless you're insinuating that I have some form of mental disorder. The thing is, I don't go around and try to figure out why I prefer chocolate over vanilla. I don't spend my whole day trying to analyze the deep patterns to my behavior. I only do it to some degree so I can analyze behavior I don't like or are disruptive. Self analysis if you will. But does knowledge about how my mind works hinder me from using my mind? No. It doesn't. I think you're creating a problem where there is none. I've gone back through your suggestions of how it might be done, but can't find a real path through. Even pretending to accept 'the illusion' and act in consonance with it is, after all, a choice of the wil. Perhaps there is a measure of freedom for our will after all. So you're saying that you can only have free will if you believe free will is supernatural and non-deterministic? I don't see why. It's like saying that you have to believe the car is going on magical pixie dust, and as soon as you know it goes on gas you can't drive anymore. I don't see a connection to how and why causing any problems. Lets say you're right. That means, for me to not go crazy I have to either pick up an illusion of free will and accept it and forget the knowledge about nature, or pick up a belief in a supernatural reason to free will? Not understanding how things works makes me go crazy, and when I know I feel content. I feel I'm on the right track on these things and it comforts me rather than scare me or hold me back. The only thing I've seen as a result is that I'm improving in mood. More even tempered and controlled. Less frustrated, and less stressed, even under very stressing situations. So should I leave all that because you have a feeling these things would make people crazy? Probably most people would go crazy, but not everyone, a few do get this and it gives them peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 ... So you're saying that you can only have free will if you believe free will is supernatural and non-deterministic? Not quite, Hans. I'm saying you can only have free will if there is such a thing. Believing free will is non-deterministic is agreeing with the dictionary. If free will is other than non-deterministic, it isn't free. I struggle with your use of words sometimes. I think you're saying that free will is an illusion, that we live within the confines of the material process, and that we follow the path according to formula and calculation based on experience, circumstance, and a few randomizations. That's not free, although as we agreed, it is complex enough to perhaps give the appearance thereof. It's illusory, though, that freedom. To retrace a bit, in the model you describe, you're content to leave the conclusion of your life and the lives of those you love to the inevitable. Lets say you're right. That means, for me to not go crazy I have to either pick up an illusion of free will and accept it and forget the knowledge about nature, or pick up a belief in a supernatural reason to free will? Not understanding how things works makes me go crazy, and when I know I feel content. I feel I'm on the right track on these things and it comforts me rather than scare me or hold me back. The only thing I've seen as a result is that I'm improving in mood. More even tempered and controlled. Less frustrated, and less stressed, even under very stressing situations. So should I leave all that because you have a feeling these things would make people crazy? Probably most people would go crazy, but not everyone, a few do get this and it gives them peace. I wouldn't phrase it that way. I appreciate what you describe, though. Understanding how things work and being comforted thereby is something with which we're all familiar. Understanding a bit of how a car works give us confidence to drive cross country or to trust it for out daily commute. Should you 'leave all that because' I have a feeling these things would make people crazy? Nope. Understanding how well the war in Vietnam was going and how confident we were in the outcome was a great comfort for the nation for awhile. As it turns out, the understanding was plagued with errors and constructed misinformation, the confidence was misplaced, and it all eventually gave way to reality. I suggest that a philosophy whose best effort at containing free will within the material realm is to decide that it is an illusion is inadequate, no matter how comforting. That said though, we arrive again at the differences of perspective, reason, and perhaps most importantly, the preferential filters that keep us from agreeing on so many lesser important things. If either of us has perfect vision and full understanding on this one, I think we'd both be surprised. Why don't you make the last comments on the issue, a parting shot if you like. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 ... So you're saying that you can only have free will if you believe free will is supernatural and non-deterministic? Not quite, Hans. I'm saying you can only have free will if there is such a thing. Believing free will is non-deterministic is agreeing with the dictionary. If free will is other than non-deterministic, it isn't free. I struggle with your use of words sometimes. But I have also said earlier that quantum mechanics can account for a non-deterministic influence on our behavior and decision, in other words, I'm not saying our decision-making ability is 100% deterministic. I think you're saying that free will is an illusion, that we live within the confines of the material process, and that we follow the path according to formula and calculation based on experience, circumstance, and a few randomizations. That's not free, although as we agreed, it is complex enough to perhaps give the appearance thereof. It's illusory, though, that freedom. To retrace a bit, in the model you describe, you're content to leave the conclusion of your life and the lives of those you love to the inevitable. Because, the way I see it, if you put "free will" into any kind of function, or a box, and try to figure out how that box works, you will have outcomes based on previous data, or you will have outcomes which are not based on previous data. If it is not based on previous data, it is random. If it is based on previous data, it is deterministic. There is no area between. The outcome of the box is always shades of gray, but gray is a mix of black and white. That's how the box works. It's a box creating gray from black and white colors. To me it seems like you just want to keep the function of the box hidden in a mystery, while I don't. I really could care less if people believe in a unexplainable "free" will or a functional. I wouldn't phrase it that way. I appreciate what you describe, though. Understanding how things work and being comforted thereby is something with which we're all familiar. Understanding a bit of how a car works give us confidence to drive cross country or to trust it for out daily commute. Should you 'leave all that because' I have a feeling these things would make people crazy? Nope. Understanding how well the war in Vietnam was going and how confident we were in the outcome was a great comfort for the nation for awhile. As it turns out, the understanding was plagued with errors and constructed misinformation, the confidence was misplaced, and it all eventually gave way to reality. I suggest that a philosophy whose best effort at containing free will within the material realm is to decide that it is an illusion is inadequate, no matter how comforting. Well, i can only say it's up to you how you feel about it. I feel different. And I think we've reached the point where there isn't much more we can explore in the subject. That said though, we arrive again at the differences of perspective, reason, and perhaps most importantly, the preferential filters that keep us from agreeing on so many lesser important things. If either of us has perfect vision and full understanding on this one, I think we'd both be surprised. Why don't you make the last comments on the issue, a parting shot if you like. Thanks. You know I always want the last word. :haha It looks like we have reached the point where we can't agree, and we can't really move forward. And, as I said above, it's not important to me if people believe in a magical free will or believe in a natural will, but it's their own choice what they think about it. It has been interesting to dive into this subject anyway, and to get all the thoughts about it out in the open. Have a great day Brian, and we'll most likely get into some discussion again soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 I haven't seen this discussed above: Most people have had variations of the New Years Resolution experience wherein "you" freely choose to loose 50#, quit smoking, exercise, or what ever. "You" make a free will decision to preform an act "you" know needs to be done, but you don't do it, or you begin it and quit. What is with that? "You" can make a free will decision to wave your hand in front of your face, but "you" can't actually wave your hand. Your body or body/mind has to do it, if it agrees to. If "you" think about it as deeply as you can, "you" will have to admit that "you" don't know how to wave the hand. "You" don't know which nerves to activate, which muscles to move in what order to get it to flap nicely. "You" thinks itself to be in charge of the body/mind, but is it really? If the body/mind doesn't agree with "you" the charge doesn't get done. Quite often of course "you" rationalize an excuse for why you weren't obeyed so that "you" can maintain the illusion of being in charge. We can easily see this rationalization taking place in others, but our own rationalizations are felt to be truly rational i.e. real reasons. If "you" imagine yourself in a population of population of people led by a Hitler, "you" would probably imagine "yourself" as resisting the evil. However, if "you" were actually in such a population "you" would not be statistically likely to resist. "You" would likely make some rationalization to explain why your body/mind is going along with the program. During my Vietnam combat tour I eventually recognized that we were probably the real bad guys in the fight. "I" tried to resolve to opt out. I could have just put down my weapon and gear and quit, but I didn't. "I" wanted to, but I didn't. Then "I" decided that at least I wouldn't shoot anybody else. The next fight "I" was in I shot somebody else. "I" was not really in charge of me. My body/mind decided it was going to live what ever moral "me" might think. Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. This is not true. The flesh (body/mind) is not weak. It is strong, stronger than the spirit ("you") no matter how ready the spirit might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Very true too. Another thing I thought about the other day is: demons. If we would look at free will the Biblical way, where a person have the freedom of choice, except when God puts a curse on the person (like on Pharaoh) or when a person is possessed. Can that person be considered "in charge" or "responsible" for his/her actions? Wouldn't Hitler be a demon possessed person in the eyes of the Christian, and they should be able to forgive Hitler--the person--while condemning Satan as the real culprit? In other words, in a world with demons, Hitler and other extreme evil guys are really *not* culpable, but should be exorcises and then set free in society as restored and good people. But why don't they? Why don't Christians relieve all the demons from the serial killers so we can let them loose again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 "You" can make a free will decision to wave your hand in front of your face, but "you" can't actually wave your hand. Your body or body/mind has to do it, if it agrees to. If "you" think about it as deeply as you can, "you" will have to admit that "you" don't know how to wave the hand. "You" don't know which nerves to activate, which muscles to move in what order to get it to flap nicely. Quite so. Anyone ever wonder why there seems to be a strong dichotomy between the conscious mind and the body/subconscious? Just one of the peculiarities of sentience? Because it's been said here a few times, it's almost like our minds are along for the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 According to this article, your brain may make a decision to act up to 7 seconds before conscious you knows about it. If this is the case, what would that say about free will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 In sociology we're more concerned with "agency" than "free will." Here's how I'd define agency: I. Your past structures you. Not just past choices, but your environment. II. In the (immediate or distant) future you are faced with constraints. But at the same time, there are multiple, alternate possibilities to choose from. This can be as mundane as whether you reach for The Economist or Us magazine while on the shitter (not to mention the unconscious decision to push a little harder to get that stubborn turd to come out), as significant yet routine as whether or not you decide to propose to your girlfriend, or as monumental as the President deciding whether or not to push the button. III. The past and the future interact in your present, which is experienced in the now. A temporal flow, if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts