General

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Lozterrk — Wed, 01 May 2013 05:13:43 GMT

"And a person identifies with his consciousness. Thus what you're trying to convey is "Does anybody in this thread truly believe that his conscious brain doesn't orchestrate choice". Well yes, that's sort of the basis of my whole contention. The unconscious brain is responsible for storing input, processing it, and calculating output a fraction of which is choice experienced by "you" aka your consciousness."

I just say there are parts of the brain that lead to automatic behavior (instincts, genetic influences, environmental programming) that didn't necessitate conscious deliberation. They are programmed biases that steer your behavior in certain ways prior to you fully analyzing a situation and understanding what you feel. When someone talks of murdering a baby, the reaction to be repulsed is not conscious. It's a result of previous beliefs stored in your brain, that say that is bad or immoral, then the moral disgust will follow. But if one takes the time to deliberate and decide that perhaps, under a certain ethical system, the death of the baby was needed for some sort of greater good, it take, or maybe as a nihilist one can debunk moral intuitions, then I think that shows how one's conscious, OBJECTIVE (no biases) reason can look at a situation for what it is, see all the possible ways to view that situation (how to feel about it, so to speak), and choose one. Which one you choose, is what is determined. It is determined based on your values, on what your personality is like, or maybe you just decide heads I'll choose A, tails I'll choose B. I believe in SELF-DETERMINISM. You know, self-directed neuroplasticity in the brain areas relevant to voluntary control of behavior and personality, and such. It's probably an emerging science. Or it should be. I don't think determinism means you have no control. And stop making such a big deal out of the fact that there is unconscious processing. You remind me of some shaman trying to conjure up spirits with your favorite little words here, trying to impress us silly masses with your word choice. Enough bs. Really, the only determinism issue that is relevant for free will is HOW YOUR VALUES are chosen or not. Yet, the simple fact that I can imagine a value that is so abstract and irrelevant to my evolved instincts, such as maximizing the amount of dogs in New York City while decreasing the amount of cats in New Jersey, shows how ANY value can be encoded within our brains. Some are more appealing to our nature (genes) and nurture (environmental programming) than others, by that I mean more appealing to the personality we're formed. Yet, imagine all the possible brains that can be instantiated in nature. Reason is a slave to our emotions. When I'm typing this to you and using my intellect to argue, it's because my emotions lead me to find this INTERESTING ENOUGH to warrant me spending the time and energy to do so in the first place. So really, assuming one can be conscious as a human, and also has a reasonable intelligence as a human, then the combination of the two is really directed by your emotions. YET, many different values and ideals are possible, like I said before. As a materialist, surely you agree that the only limit to the values that can be encoded in our brains is the limit imposed by the laws of physics and the laws of logic. As far as I am concerned, if one can CHOOSE one's values, they may have some sort of free will. Our actions are a result of us trying to follow our values. So it's about being able to choose one value over the other. The question for me then is, how are my values chosen? Randomly (coin toss)? Or determined... (by my nature, really)? Maybe it doesn't matter. The fact that I can imagine, logically speaking, the value I stated above, about the dogs in NYC and cats in NJ, shows, to me, that values are very diverse. This is what it's about to me. Not that silly little "your consciousness doesn't choose", blah blah blah. No, your QUALIA, doesn't choose is what you mean. There are parts of the brain that lead to VOLUNTARY and INVOLUNTARY behaviour. Controlling your heart beat is mostly involuntary, unless one is skilled at meditation. My issue is whether a person has the ability to choose a different course of action.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Lozterrk — Wed, 01 May 2013 04:47:35 GMT

Hashem, you mistake qualia, the sensation of consciousness, with actual operative conscious actions. As in, the part of the brain that is not purely automatic, due to genetic or previous conditioned responses. There is a part of the brain that is involuntary and then there is a part that is voluntary, one that can take in an issue, analyze it, come up with several different responses, and choose one course of action.

All your epiphenomenalist arguments are leeching off of the neuroscientific establishment's fetish with determinism. Have you EVER considered the fact that most of these guys are just used by the powers that be to make us think that we as individuals have no power over own lives, so we have no choice but to give the state even more power? I bet not. I bet you look at the current materialist paradigm in science and look at it as being the epitome of human knowledge and that it ought to rule our lives. In other words, science is your new religion. You have provided no original arguments. You merely leech off of what the neuroscientists claim. I bet you think you're pretty smart too. Intellectual masturbation more like it.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Lozterrk — Wed, 01 May 2013 04:42:22 GMT

What does blindsight have to do with this? Or sleep walking? Your arguments are just parasitic copies of Wegner et al, socialists who love nothing more than to be given political power over us. JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE EXAMPLES WHEN THINGS ARE DONE UNCONSCIOUS, DOESN'T MEAN EVERYTHING ELSE IS UNCONSCIOUS AS WELL. That's the stupidest argument I ever heard.

The rest of your answers are irrelevant. Evolution can lead to free will, or not.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

shackleford — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 04:27:19 GMT

Even in a hypothetical discussion with someone, you probably don't need to quote yourself. lol.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

thetabularasa — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:24:51 GMT

Wheylous:

I've pretty much settled on determinism

I'm glad you've chosen to settle on determinism...as opposed to choosing to believe in another theory?

Wheylous:

and don't really think the issue is a very major one for libertarianism.

Taking Austrian Economics (Praxeology) out of this, where the will of the individual is implied due to his ability to choose, Libertarianism has its roots in minimal statism, for instance during the times of the Classical Liberals, and has grown to include anarcho-capitalism (a stateless, leaderless society) in its schema. Are you actually making the case that will does not exist and that choice is an illusion, thus the Holocaust (for the sake of listing an emotional example) was, for a lack of a better word, fate?

If you mean to say that people have will but it is not free (as in people are frequently geared towards borrowing traditions, values and so forth and rarely create any of their own), then I can understand what you mean, although I disagree. If you mean to say that people are essentially on the same course as a meteor, although we're of a different construct, then choice is merely an illusion, and I totally disagree with you. Why? Because I choose to.

Wheylous:

Best a statist could say is "Well, if he wasn't in control of his actions, should he be punished?" To which I reply "How can I help my punishing him? After all, it's what I'm pre-determined to do."

Seriously, the world is deterministic - get over it. Pretend as if it's not (and I say "pretend" self-consciously, because you can't really choose whether to pretend or not). So yeah - determinism true, but we shouldn't bust our heads over it. Keep living as if it isn't. Cuz if it is, it won't matter anyway!

Sure, just give up this entire notion that we have willpower and adopt the notion that "the world is deterministic" and then get over it. I'm sure I could just as easily say that you have no hope to be free or want to be free, and since choice is an illusion and everything is deterministic, you should accept the governmental tyranny that is happening to you. If you happen to be biologically/metaphysically geared towards resisting this, what prompted the lineage that lead to that involuntary resistance on your part? I suppose we could trace it back to the Big Bang, right? That whole "something from nothing" which was also determined, hence implying pre-determined, right?

Very curious to see your clarification.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

mikachusetts — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:02:55 GMT

Physiocrat:
As an addenum, with causality there must be a first cause otherwise the chain of causality would never come into existence, therefore the universed requires an original ultimate cause; I am not at this point arguing whether it is the universe itself or some form of deity. Now since that is the case there could be other similar causes to this ultimate first cause which start seperate chains of causality- the will begins a chain rather than being a link in a pre-exisiting one.. This is how I understand real, metaphysical free will- it begins a chain of causality, it is not a link in a pre-existing one. It however does not follow from this that it is random since that precludes meaningful choice. Free will is necessary but mysterious since it is basic- it cannot be explained in other terms since it is in fact basic to human existence.

This. The problem is, most people reject Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics out of hand due to misunderstanding and a blind faith in materialism (or just a total reluctance to address metaphysics at all). As a result, what you are saying is just completely lost on most people.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Lady Saiga — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:14:58 GMT

I find on this forum the will is generally equated with conscious choice, but I take issue with that. Classically the will was defined as prior to the intellect, and I think this is borne out by the testing that neuroscientists are doing whereby they establish that we become aware of our actions AFTER they have been initiated.

I don't see those findings as demonstrating that free will is an illusion. I think they only demonstrate what was already established by philosophy, that the will/volition happens at an unconscious level. The part that consciousness plays is more like veto-power than it is the origination point of choice.

This explains why we can hold individuals accountable for their actions. Though the initial volition for action occurs pre-consciously, the ability to practice restraint is conscious.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Physiocrat — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:43:59 GMT

AJ:

I don't grok the sentence structure there. It begins but it doesn't? And what is causality exactly? Also, need to define "predetermined" if we'll use it.

I was just re-reading bits of this thread and notice I made a huge error in writing what my mind was thinking. The confusing passage should now read:

As an addenum, with causality there must be a first cause otherwise the chain of causality would never come into existence, therefore the universed requires an original ultimate cause; I am not at this point arguing whether it is the universe itself or some form of deity. Now since that is the case there could be other similar causes to this ultimate first cause which start seperate chains of causality- the will begins a chain rather than being a link in a pre-exisiting one.. This is how I understand real, metaphysical free will- it begins a chain of causality, it is not a link in a pre-existing one. It however does not follow from this that it is random since that precludes meaningful choice. Free will is necessary but mysterious since it is basic- it cannot be explained in other terms since it is in fact basic to human existence.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Cortes — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:07:35 GMT

z1235:

Lozterrk,

So it's an excuse to also attack the free market by saying people are too stupid to do well in the free market, it needs therefore to be regulated by experts.

Presumably, these attackers and expert regulators would have been pre-determined to do so?

"Yes, we're the lawmakers/protectors/scientists who know best because it's predetermined!"

Most laypeople would buy into this reasoning. In fact I can't even see why it's so bad; at least, I am unable with my knowledge to see any flaws in it. But wouldn't it mean they are arguing that the best and brightest are anointed from the beginning of time to wield power? It starts to get a little creepy.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Clayton — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 03:02:36 GMT

wtf is open theism?

Here.

Clayton -

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

triknighted — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:11:20 GMT

Clayton:

Open theism, that's the term I was looking for! It's been years since I debated that stuff...

Clayton -

wtf is open theism?

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

thetabularasa — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:11:14 GMT

gotlucky:

hashem won't be able to resist typing a response. Of course, it won't be hashem's choice. His fingers will type and his consciousness will experience it.

LOL Nicely put. It's similar to the social scientists' claim that controlling one's environment will directly influence their behavior via operant conditioning. This "science" denies free will and the ability to choose outside of environmental influence--hence, they deny the ability to choose freely. When they say this, I kindly asked them what environmental factor influenced them to try to influence me, and they say, "The conversation we're having." Then I ask, "What prompted the conversation but free choice?" and they say, "It must have been something that we're not aware of." To which I say, "If you're not aware of it, how are you able to not only talk about it but describe its function in relation to our own conscious, free decision making capabilities when we're not free to think of extra-environmental influences as is?"

That's when I usually get the eye-rolling behavior and get told, "You're thinking too much into it."

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

thetabularasa — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:05:50 GMT

hashem:

thetabularasa:
Do you believe that you are in complete control of your behavior except for completely involuntary movements such as salivation, flinching and jumping when startled?

It's a malformed question! "You" are your consciousness. Of course your consciousness isn't in complete control of the entire body, no less the entire brain! Conscious brain activity accounts for a mere fraction of brain activity. As I've pointed out several times most of the brain and indeed the entire body is neither consciously aware nor reliant for function on the consciousness.

So is that your round about way of saying "no"? LOL

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

AJ — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 06:32:10 GMT

Hashem, usefully defining conscious choice for me versus for other people seem different endeavors. I don't really *know* I have a subconscious or even a "brain." All I really know is I feel like I can make choices, and that's all that matters to me. For other people, yeah you could be on to something with the idea that you=your conscious mind. I still say it's just a question of what is the most useful way to model the behavior of other consciousnesses.

Physiocrat, we aren't even at the assumptions stage yet; we're still reconciling definitions. I make no assumptions whatsoever. I'm merely pointing out the implications in the language that's being used so as to clear away the distractions of semantics and actually make the points precise enough to be able sweep away the confusion that philosophy has been mired in all this time, mainly because they skip the definitions stage, which is where all the action is. Once definitions are cleared up for all relevant terms, we will be in full agreement because all the points to be made here are tautological.

In fact, a close reading of my longest post above may reveal that I already agree with you: the only useful thing to say about whether other humans are agents is, "Yes, they are." I've merely been pointing out that this is equivalent to saying, "It is useful to model the movements of other humans by analogy with my own consciousness," in terms of what you or anyone else could ever care about - by definition. The latter is merely a less ambiguous version of the former. To interpret it any other way would be a misinterpretation. The reason I put it this way as opposed to more simple English is that the simple English version leaves open objections from determinists because it is imprecise. Get it? If you want to resolve the debate, you can't do it by leaving all the terms fluffy like the philosophers of the past two millennia have done, lest this debate rage on for another two millenniua.

Re: Free Will and Libertarianism.

Clayton — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:33:37 GMT

Open theism, that's the term I was looking for! It's been years since I debated that stuff...

Clayton -