/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 56 KB, 350x263, atheists_3501.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:40:42 2011 No.3148645 [Reply] [Original]

The problem is that no account of causality leaves room for free will -- thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring into view -- and move us, or fail to move us, for reasons that are, from a subjective point of view, perfectly inscrutable. Why did I use the term "inscrutable" in the previous sentence? I must confess that I do not know. Was I free to do otherwise? What could such a claim possibly mean? Why, after all, didn't the word "opaque" come to mind? Well, it just didn't -- and now that it vies for a place on the page, I find that I am still partial to my original choice. Am I free with respect to this preference? Am I free to feel that "opaque" is the better word, when I just do not feel that it is the better word? Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 18:44:42 2011 No.3148664 >>3148645 Word choice preference is superficial. One word is not better than the other. Your argument is weak.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 18:47:42 2011 No.3148678 >>3148664 tell that to sam harris then

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:48:42 2011 No.3148683

>>3148664
Please attempt to dispute his initial point or GTFO.

Free will probably doesn't exist or at least isn't or can't be known to exist but it's not depressing because you at least still have your volition, freedom and liberty. Plus it's not like by accepting a deterministic attitude you can suddenly predict the future with a great degree of certainty

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:48:42 2011 No.3148681

We are conscious of only a tiny fraction of the information that our brains process in each moment. While we continually notice changes in our experience -- in thought, mood, perception, behavior, etc. -- we are utterly unaware of the neural events that produce these changes. In fact, by merely glancing at your face or listening to your tone of voice, others are often more aware of your internal states and motivations than you are. And yet most of us still feel that we are the authors of our own thoughts and actions.

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:52:42 2011 No.3148696

>>3148683
He makes a claim.
Supports him claim.
His support for his claim is weak.
I point it out.

He did say he doesnt believe free will exist. Her said it not possible. If you are going to make a claim like that you have to explain why free will isnt possible first.

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:53:42 2011 No.3148707

I came to terms with this a while ago. If I remove free will from my personal philosophy, not much changes. I am still responsible for my actions because they still arise from processes in my brain. These processes can be changed by educating, training, etc, so I can change myself.

Furthermore, if I do something unethical, punishment still works because that experience will change the processes in my brain, hopefully leading to my betterment.

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:55:42 2011 No.3148712

Don't take this as pretentious 8th grade pseudo-philosophy, but what is free will exactly?

I mean, we don't choose to be born. We don't choose to hear things. Yes, we can cover our ears, but we continue to process the available vibrations none-the-less.

Is a decision to choose between an apple or an orange really free will?

Why is not eating feces a fairly universal act? (inb4 fecophilia)

I think before we can decide whether or not we have free will, we must have an adequate understanding of it.

Anonymous Mon May 30 18:58:42 2011 No.3148723

>>3148696
You didn't refute his central point. You pointed out a weakness in his subsequent example (word choice). I've written a fuckload on free will on these boards. Really can't be arsed to copy and paste into a million comment boxes since every time I have, no one has been able to convince me (or the majority of the thread's participants) of free will.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:02:42 2011 No.3148745

>>3148723
What is his central point. Free will doesnt exist. Thats a nice statement. Does he have any argument supporting it to back it up. Yes, a very weak one.

Id be happy to debate free will with you if you believe its possible first or at least state why you believe its not possible.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:04:42 2011 No.3148757

There is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions, of course, but it does nothing to support the common idea of free will (nor does it depend upon it). The former are associated with felt intentions (desires, goals, expectations, etc.) while the latter are not. All of the conventional distinctions we like to make between degrees of intent -- from the bizarre neurological complaint of alien hand syndrome to the premeditated actions of a sniper -- can be maintained: for they simply describe what else was arising in the mind at the time an action occurred.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:05:42 2011 No.3148763

A voluntary action is accompanied by the felt intention to carry it out, while an involuntary action isn't. Where our intentions themselves come from, however, and what determines their character in every instant, remains perfectly mysterious in subjective terms. Our sense of free will arises from a failure to appreciate this fact: we do not know what we will intend to do until the intention itself arises. To see this is to realize that you are not the author of your thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose. This insight does not make social and political freedom any less important, however. The freedom to do what one intends, and not to do otherwise, is no less valuable than it ever was.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:09:42 2011 No.3148785

While all of this can sound very abstract, it is important to realize that the question of free will is no mere curio of philosophy seminars. A belief in free will underwrites both the religious notion of "sin" and our enduring commitment to retributive justice. The Supreme Court has called free will a "universal and persistent" foundation for our system of law, distinct from "a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system" (United States v. Grayson, 1978). Any scientific developments that threatened our notion of free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior in question.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:10:42 2011 No.3148794

>>3148712
>We don't choose to hear things
For the sake of argument lets assume this is true. What are senses do is take in data. It has no meaning. You have to create your own subjective perception. Theres some theory that children see upside down at first but learn to reverse it in their mind.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:10:42 2011 No.3148799

The great worry is that any honest discussion of the underlying causes of human behavior seems to erode the notion of moral responsibility. If we view people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about morality? And if we remain committed to seeing people as people, some who can be reasoned with and some who cannot, it seems that we must find some notion of personal responsibility that fits the facts.

∞ chan !!JpUnLqt++st Mon May 30 19:11:42 2011 No.3148801

When you say humans don't have free will, you have to state what it is we don't have free will from.

Do we have free will from our own minds?
Of course not. That's not even logically possible.

Our minds are incredibly complex machines which calculate the best action based on genetic programming and environmental learning. Does the fact that we always choose what we think is the best choice destroy "free will"?
Well (soul or no soul) it would be logically impossible not to. And we already know the mind is very fallible (and can predict many of these fallibilities with great accuracy), so does this mean the soul is fallible? If so, then it's ultimately a calculating machine just like the brain.

ITT: people thinking that "free will" means something that's logically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:13:42 2011 No.3148815 >>3148801 Everything you said is complete bull. If i give you a calculator does it calculate equations without your input?

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:13:42 2011 No.3148816

Happily, we can. What does it really mean to take responsibility for an action? For instance, yesterday I went to the market; as it turns out, I was fully clothed, did not steal anything, and did not buy anchovies. To say that I was responsible for my behavior is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them. If, on the other hand, I had found myself standing in the market naked, intent upon stealing as many tins of anchovies as I could carry, this behavior would be totally out of character; I would feel that I was not in my right mind, or that I was otherwise not responsible for my actions. Judgments of responsibility, therefore, depend upon the overall complexion of one's mind, not on the metaphysics of mental cause and effect.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:14:42 2011 No.3148824

>Free will doesn't exist.

Well, considering I've never heard a good description of what free will is supposed to be...

Free will is the word we use to describe our decision making processes in the brain. We choose to do things in the same way that a chess computer chooses which move to make. Chess computers still play chess, and we still navigate the world as free agents, regardless of whether we'd both always do the same thing in the same exact circumstances.

Unless one can describe the point at which magic occurs and adds 'free will' to the brain, and then explain why the decisions made by this free will are ignorant to the physical reality of our situation, we are left with either determinism or random chance. This is usually unsatisfactory to most people, since they want it to be magic.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:16:42 2011 No.3148833 >>3148815 Does a human brain make decisions without any form of input?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:19:42 2011 No.3148850 >>3148824 >adds 'free will' to the brain The moment you become conscious of your own existence.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:20:42 2011 No.3148852 Shut up, nihilist scum.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:21:42 2011 No.3148856

It seems to me that we need not have any illusions about a casual agent living within the human mind to condemn such a mind as unethical, negligent, or even evil, and therefore liable to occasion further harm.

What we condemn in another person is the intention to do harm -- and thus any condition or circumstance (e.g., accident, mental illness, youth) that makes it unlikely that a person could harbor such an intention would mitigate guilt, without any recourse to notions of free will.

Likewise, degrees of guilt could be judged, as they are now, by reference to the facts of the case: the personality of the accused, his prior offenses, his patterns of association with others, his use of intoxicants, his confessed intentions with regard to the victim, etc. If a person's actions seem to have been entirely out of character, this will influence our sense of the risk he now poses to others.

If the accused appears unrepentant and anxious to kill again, we need entertain no notions of free will to consider him a danger to society.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:21:42 2011 No.3148857 >>3148833 Your 'free will' is the only input.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:21:42 2011 No.3148858

>>3148824
>Unless one can describe the point at which magic occurs and adds 'free will' to the brain

Free will isn't "added" to the brain; it isn't some crossing over, like in the Cartesian Theater.

>we are left with either determinism or random chance.

That doesn't resolve anything, then.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:22:42 2011 No.3148865

>>3148824
>>3148801
Too often the existence of free will is used as a basis for belief in God. That rational is faulty and based on speculation that we can somehow override our own brain chemistry. I'm refuting a definition of free will commonly held by theists as "evidence" for God. What you guys have asserted is a "free will" that is more akin to liberty/volition/individual autonomy or freedom. That's considerably easier to defend for obvious reasons.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:22:42 2011 No.3148866 >>3148850 And how is this separate from the purely materialistic functioning of the brain? If it isn't, and it can't be, then the workings of the brain are either entirely deterministic or have some random component.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:23:42 2011 No.3148875

Why is the conscious decision to do another person harm particularly blameworthy?

Because consciousness is, among other things, the context in which our intentions become available to us.

What we do subsequent to conscious planning tends to most fully reflect the global properties of our minds -- our beliefs, desires, goals, prejudices, etc.

If, after weeks of deliberation, library research, and debate with your friends, you still decide to kill the king -- well, then killing the king really reflects the sort of person you are.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:25:42 2011 No.3148890

While viewing human beings as forces of nature does not prevent us from thinking in terms of moral responsibility, it does call the logic of retribution into question.

Clearly, we need to build prisons for people who are intent upon harming others. But if we could incarcerate earthquakes and hurricanes for their crimes, we would build prisons for them as well.

The men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, and bad luck -- which of these quantities, exactly, were they responsible for?

No human being stands as author to his own genes or his upbringing, and yet we have every reason to believe that these factors determine his character throughout life.

Our system of justice should reflect our understanding that each of us could have been dealt a very different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:26:42 2011 No.3148896 >>3148875 what is the holy name of fuck has this got to do with anything?

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:27:42 2011 No.3148903
File: 16 KB, 304x344, Sarah-Palin-7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

humans idea of a god is bullshit

the sooner you stop trying to prove the unprovable, the happier you can live.

no stupid rules, no stupid prayers, no wasted sundays, good day.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:28:42 2011 No.3148909

Despite our attachment to notions of free will, most us know that disorders of the brain can trump the best intentions of the mind.

This shift in understanding represents progress toward a deeper, more consistent, and more compassionate view of our common humanity -- and we should note that this is progress away from religious metaphysics.

Few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems.

And yet one of the fears surrounding our progress in neuroscience is that this knowledge will dehumanize us.

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:32:42 2011 No.3148933

>>3148866
>And how is this separate from the purely materialistic functioning of the brain
Its a concept one ones self that at some point comes into existence.
>random component
its the part of you that observes yourself. Cut off the everything else.
>the observation of an experiment changes its outcome

Scribble a line on a piece of paper. Theres is an equation that could describe the line. But you cant find the equation until you finish the equation because there is an infinite amount of equations that could be created. The one that you drew isnt created until you finish it. It cant be determined.

∞ chan !!JpUnLqt++st Mon May 30 19:35:42 2011 No.3148944

>>3148815

inputs come from our environment via our senses. We already come with preprogrammed orders to engage in activities likely to increase our survival/reproduction chances.

no idea what you're trying to get at.

>>3148865

I see, but as i said, if this "magic" reasoning capacity is so obviously flawed, and these flaws in judgement line up so well with current evolutionary/neuorlogical science....well that's pretty shitty magic :D.

Unless they're saying our reasoning is from the brain but our "choices" come from the soul.... but how can you make a choice if not through reason?

aiaiaiaiai.

I'm off to bed ;).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:36:42 2011 No.3148952 >>3148944 The input doesnt come from our environment. Thats just the list of choices.

>>	∞ chan !!JpUnLqt++st Mon May 30 19:37:42 2011 No.3148960 >>3148952 well what "input" are you talking about then, if not from our genes or our environment?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:39:42 2011 No.3148973 >>3148960 But you already know the answer to that.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:43:42 2011 No.3148999 >>3148944 Its not flawed. Our brain is 'flawed'. It really just our logic that flawed which can be improved. This 'magic' is the impartial factor that chooses.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 19:51:42 2011 No.3149035 we feel shit and we are the feeling, that's all

Anonymous Mon May 30 19:52:42 2011 No.3149040

>>3148707
>I came to terms with this a while ago. If I remove free will from my personal philosophy, not much changes. I am still responsible for my actions because they still arise from processes in my brain. These processes can be changed by educating, training, etc, so I can change myself.
>I can change myself.

Your logic is flawed. You would require free will to be able to change yourself. You make the same mistake that so many others make... you fail to understand what the absence of free will truly entails. This is natural, because the perception of free will is so strong and so pervasive in the subjective experience that we are, in general, not able to truly consider the consequences of its absence.

But hey, if you're prepared to ignore one of the primary and most powerful perceptions in favor of conjectures based on weak arguments that extrapolate from other conjectures, then I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand this and I believe that you will only persist in your pseudo-intellectual sophism.

Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]