Advocates of Free will. Now's your chance

I don't think so. We start from our everyday experience and the concept of "action" for example is an essential part of it. Hmm... Science might "prove" that there is no such thing, just as physics has "proved" that there are no colours, only electromagnetic waves of varying levels of energy. You forget that science works through abstraction and idealization and completely relies on using instruments to measure (basically physical) quantities. You wouldn't seriously say you can't see colours just because modern physics does not use the concept? Oh yes, there are psychophysical laws like Fechner's but they relate two domains, the psychological and the physical, and don't collapse them into one. Do you want to explain away what science is not interested in or is incapable to explain because of its methodology? (I'm sure you don't believe science has no methodological biases.)

I can only agree with you here. I mean, with what you actually say, not with what you imply; that is that the tradition of Western philosophy is worthless. Taking your implied advice would be just throwing away one set of books in favour of another set. Hey... one-sidedness is not profession-related!

Yes, yes. The mind as a machine. An attractive idea indeed! Is it a computer?
What kind of computer do you have in... "mind"? A Turing machine perhaps? Or PDP? Or something else? Which type, please?

The word "computer" seems to be a "magic word" in cognitive scientists' circles. Still, nobody has been able to say clearly in what sense is the mind a computer. Computers have theoretical limits (see Turing's, Church's and Gödel's results in algorithm theory and logic) which the mind doesn't seem to have. Computers are theoretically limited by the notion of "effective procedure". That is why "intuition" is not and cannot be a concept of theoretical computer science. Still, you have intuition, as we all do. And I could again refer to colours which have no computational equivalent. I'm not saying by this that the mind is mystical or "magical". I'm only saying that the computer metaphor you seem to believe to be the plain truth is not the plain truth. You have the right to simplify things but that is not the way real science (should) work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To river-wind:

I read your theory, and I like it!

I also like your idea of taking hold of randomness, cause that is what we do, we put our soul in things, we identify with something to understand it. Taking hold of randomness wouldn't be identifying with it though, it would be looking at it from the "outside", viewing all possibilities (letting them come, making room for them) and then from your feeling of which is the right one pick it.

Imagine that you have a ring that has a certain size (not a ring that you can put on a finger, but a large circle), the ring is fixed with space, if you make the ring smaller then space get's more compact and if you make the ring bigger then everything that makes space hold apart would be moved from eachother and it would merge something between each part (imagine it with a buzzing sound) the possibilities holding space together. Each "something" would be brightly shining, since it is the energy itself.

This won't be understood (at least I have a hard time imagine it will). But think of it like this: What would happen if we could rip apart space? What would be beneath? Would the ripped out part create another mini-universe folded upon itself?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm. I submit that many, if not most or even all, of our "common sense intuitions" that we don't feel the need to question are, in reality, among the most questionable beliefs that we hold. Starting with the data of "everyday experience" is great, but I question building a theory of free will upon our unsupported, instinctive/intuitive interpretations of this data.

Yes, we know that we "do things," and we know that it usually seems as though we freely choose to do them. However, in the context of this discussion, I think it's reasonable and necessary to ask that we honestly examine/consider the possibility that our belief that "the 'things that we do' are the results of our own free choices" is as illusionary (if also as understandable, and as useful) as a child's belief in God.

Again; to uncritically accept the distinctions between "actions" and "events," and between "cause" and "reason" while searching for free will, as you propose, is to assume our conclusion. This of course is question-begging, the philosopher's bane.

I'm not sure where all this science-based argumentation came from, as I based my disagreement with you on entirely on Philosophy's idear that "Question Begging" is a logical fallacy; I did not tell you that I looked in my electron microscope and did not see any free will. However, I will strongly suggest that you add some Philosophy of Science to your brain's diet, and enjoy the results. Your conception of the way science operates seems to be, with truly no insult intended, exceedingly cartoonish.

Nope, didn't mean to imply that at all, sorry if I did!

Western philosophy has all kinds of uses, and has been and continues to be a fabulously useful tool for me. Hell, it underpins all of science, although you seem to think that they are totally separate realms and methods of inquiry. Philosophy gives us powerful mind tools; I was only suggesting that we provide ourselves with the best data science can provide about our species, evolution, brains, etc. in the effort to understand what makes us tick.

If we want to know our minds, we must examine them as brains, and brains should be considered as physical things that arose due to natural selection.

Do you think that monkeys have free will? How about little furry rats and such? Bugs? Where, how, and why, in the transition from deterministic pre-human animal to "rational man," did "free will" arise? At what point did a line of simple animals, without any meaningful free will, transform beyond a mere convincing illusion of free agency, and develop truly free wills? How? Why?


Personally, I don't think we ever did.

Hrm. I called them "biological computers" simply to note that they are physical, non-mystical, evolution-crafted organs, which, without going way into it, are defined largely by their ability to "compute." You're tilting your lance at a strawman of your own making again, kind sir.

(Funny thing is, I think that the strawman that you set up to knock down could actually knock your arguments apart and kick your position's ass, if anyone cared to argue its case. That intuition and color stuff utterly fails to meaningfully distinguish the human brain from a highly complex computer, but that's a whole other discussion that can/should be set aside for now.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or like colours?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But seriously: We agree that there's a possibility that free will doesn't exist. What I wrote was a conceptual point, the need to distinguish between various concepts (event, action, cause and reason), which does not imply any decision as to the matter of free will. They are part of the vocabulary, not the theory! What you're suggesting is that we should mutilate our vocabulary (you yourself wrote that those notions are to be omitted from the discussion) but the only reason you've brought is that they are everyday concepts and as such are not necessarily reliable. By the way, if we accept your advice, not even "cause" and "event" remains. They are not a bit clearer concepts than the other two. Does anybody have a clear idea what an "event" is?

Could you please define "event" or "cause"?

I'm afraid we misunderstand each other. I was talking about introducing certain concepts and about the disposition of natural science to eliminate certain things from its ontology. That's all. I mean that's how science comes into the picture; and of course it was also a reaction to your kind advice to read biology books instead of the "dusty old Bibles of Western philosophy".

I always bow down before men of learning and true knowledge. I'll go back to university to take some more Carnap and Kuhn, I promise!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You wrote: "[...] read up on evolutionary biology, and not just the dusty old Bibles of Western philosophy." Obviously, these words don't imply any contempt... But this is an unimportant issue, let's forget about it.

Well, you're a bit mistaken if you think I see them as two "totally separate realms".

The relationship between brain and mind is beyond my reach, really. How can the mind influence the physical processes in the brain, or in the body in general? I do not think that it is done by magic (I wrote this in my previous post too).

If we want to know what some software like Windows XP does, is it a good way to take the computer apart? What will you learn from the experiment? What will you learn about Windows XP from examining closely your computer's transformator? The pixels that make up the screen? Why are you so damned certain that this is the way to the desired solution?

Do you think you are alive? How about bacteria? Virus? Where, how and why, in the transition from dead matter to living organisms, did life arise? At what point did a series of organic molecules, without any life, transform beyond a mere convincing illusion of self-reproduction and metabolism, and develop true life? How? Why?

Personally, I do think we somehow did.

My professor, if it is only meant to be a metaphor, then I wholeheartedly concur.

???

 

Too long. I've written up the post, and it's available here:

http://homepage.mac.com/river_wind/Personal33.html

I have some interesting questions for you guys having really thought this thing through- is thought a symptom of biology, or is biology simply the structure which allows for thought? I hadn't considered that part of it before, and it lead to some fun follow-up ideas.

If thought is a fully biological thing - a memory exsists simply because there is a neuron designed to emcode for that memory - then free will is nearly impossible, it seems. While still possible in a random uiniverse (flexability inherent for dealing with randomness presenting itself in the form of conscious awareness), it would be a bit more complicated.

what do you guys think?


edit: I like the topic of reason vs cause, as well. A good distinction to make. If thoughts are not causational biology, but are "free", then reasons for things would be the logical choices we make to warrent certain actions. Cause would be a more direct deterministic approach removing freedom from the equation - thought in a fully deterministic world could be considered "caused", and it could also be considered a cause of future events - no reasoning involved, just a step in a causational process.

edit: ok, post works now.

 

free will like the uncertainty principle..

as soon as you measure it,, it decoheres into determinism..

 

Since posting this thread I have come to an understanding of free will.

Firstly free will is like a pencil that you try to balance on it's point, it is constantly teetering.

Secondly, Free will is determined by our reaction to pressures from within and applied as randomly as possible to the outside world.

For example one of our most sensitive faculties is our sense of sight.

We look where we want to, no one other than ourselves determines what we look at.

Until you experience a state where by you feel compelled to look at something. Then one could say that free will is impringed upon.

If you are not able to stop looking at something and you feel unable to resist then your ability to select freely ( at random if you wish ) at what you look at is limited.

A person addicted to women for instance has great difficulty not looking and if he consideres this to be a problem then he is aware of his addiction thus he is aware that he has lost to a degree his freewill in regards to women.