Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 6, 2011 at 9:31 pm)Greatest I am Wrote: Free will is simply the ability to choose from given choices on the menu. So to speak. If you are given a choice between a or b or c, without any coercion attached to any of them, and if you can choose and get either of them, then you have free will.
To make that choice requires a thought.
True.
Quote: This thought is generated by the biochemical processes of the body.
Part of the body. The brain. True.
Quote: The body makes the choice, not the will.
Will is generated by brain and this will leads to choosing. Brain must know there is a choice to be made before generating the will to choose.
I made an offer above. Your brain and consciousness processed the information, decided you could choose to accept it or not and chose not to and exercised your will by ignoring it. Right?
Quote: Our consciousness rationalizes this action and convinces us that we made a choice.
Decisions do not have to be made in the conscious portion of the brain, to be choice. Will directs what we focus on, thus limiting out window to the sum of consciousness to the active portion. I would say almsot every decision is made subconsciously prior to conscious recognition. What you're forgetting is that the consciousness and focus (ie. will) can feed back into the subconscious forcing another decision to be made. The mechanism of decision making is mechanical (gathering info, polling senses, fight or flight, etc.), but it's information and commands when necessary to decide (outside of instinctual reflex) come from abstract stimuli (both outside and inside the consciousness).
I think it would be more appropriate to say non-instinctual decisions are initiated by many responces. One of which can be the foci of will. But you'll probably go into all reactions are naturalistic and instictual since you seem to be a pure materialst from what I gather.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Sure we can make choices, but when we know that these decisions are affected by brain structure, does that mean we have free will?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(November 7, 2011 at 6:47 am)tackattack Wrote: Decisions do not have to be made in the conscious portion of the brain, to be choice.
True. To a point. What some call the subconscious, where our autonomous instincts live, will decide some things on it's own. For instance, make our hearts pump. This is automatic and not in conscious control.
Quote: Will directs what we focus on,
Not always. If I inadvertently and unknowingly place my hand on a hot stove, it is will that will move it. Will did not decide to focus on it and move it before the pain started.
Quote: thus limiting out window to the sum of consciousness to the active portion. I would say almsot every decision is made subconsciously prior to conscious recognition.
They work in harmony. Yes. Although we are not sure just what our subconscious is or how much it actually does.
Quote: What you're forgetting is that the consciousness and focus (ie. will) can feed back into the subconscious forcing another decision to be made.
Yes but for all we know, it is all the same consciousness but with two internal files making up the one.
Trying to split the two just confuses the issue. I KIS.
Quote:The mechanism of decision making is mechanical (gathering info, polling senses, fight or flight, etc.), but it's information and commands when necessary to decide (outside of instinctual reflex) come from abstract stimuli (both outside and inside the consciousness).
Ok.
Quote:I think it would be more appropriate to say non-instinctual decisions are initiated by many responces.
Ok.
Quote: One of which can be the foci of will.
Not usually. Will comes last based on the decision made. Will initiated the response the mind chose.
Will can be a factor to the decision only in eliminating the impossible or knowing what the limits of that will is.
In my burning hand scenario, will may have indicated to the hand that it could pull away and that flying away would be impossible.
Quote: But you'll probably go into all reactions are naturalistic and instictual since you seem to be a pure materialst from what I gather.
If our reactions are not naturalistic then they would be unnaturalistic.
I do not do the unnatural or the supernatural.
(November 7, 2011 at 6:47 am)tackattack Wrote: Decisions do not have to be made in the conscious portion of the brain, to be choice. Will directs what we focus on, thus limiting out window to the sum of consciousness to the active portion. I would say almsot every decision is made subconsciously prior to conscious recognition. What you're forgetting is that the consciousness and focus (ie. will) can feed back into the subconscious forcing another decision to be made. The mechanism of decision making is mechanical (gathering info, polling senses, fight or flight, etc.), but it's information and commands when necessary to decide (outside of instinctual reflex) come from abstract stimuli (both outside and inside the consciousness).
I think it would be more appropriate to say non-instinctual decisions are initiated by many responces. One of which can be the foci of will. But you'll probably go into all reactions are naturalistic and instictual since you seem to be a pure materialst from what I gather.
"You would say" anything that you feel might support your position. Care to elaborate on this theory of yours? Perhaps link some peer reviewed papers? It's a very active area of study, should be mountains of data if your conclusions could be supported. When you're done arguing that theory we can move on to whatever you want to use it to support eh?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(November 7, 2011 at 8:53 am)Faith No More Wrote: Sure we can make choices, but when we know that these decisions are affected by brain structure, does that mean we have free will?
Actual brain structure, except for damage, has no relevance.
I recall a study done on a man whose brain had a large hole in it's center. He still functioned naturally as other parts or the brain took over for the missing part.
Mind structure may make a difference but as yet, we do not really know where the mind lives or how it works. We can tell where we are doing the thinking but cannot know for sure how it connects or is effected by other parts. Science is coming up with some answers but is still far from a complete picture.
We do not need to know all of the factors to know and prove that we have free will.
Sure we can make choices, but when we know that these decisions are affected by brain structure, does that mean we have free will?
Just because your decision making can affected by both your focus or intent and physically manipulating certain brain structures doesn't mean that it has to be one or the other, nor does it limit the freedom you have to introduce wanted data into the equation
(November 7, 2011 at 10:06 am)Greatest I am Wrote:
If our reactions are not naturalistic then they would be unnaturalistic.
I do not do the unnatural or the supernatural.
Regards
DL
Like a said a strict materialist, now please learn to use hide tags
(November 7, 2011 at 10:11 am)Rhythm Wrote:
(November 7, 2011 at 6:47 am)tackattack Wrote: Decisions do not have to be made in the conscious portion of the brain, to be choice. Will directs what we focus on, thus limiting out window to the sum of consciousness to the active portion. I would say almsot every decision is made subconsciously prior to conscious recognition. What you're forgetting is that the consciousness and focus (ie. will) can feed back into the subconscious forcing another decision to be made. The mechanism of decision making is mechanical (gathering info, polling senses, fight or flight, etc.), but it's information and commands when necessary to decide (outside of instinctual reflex) come from abstract stimuli (both outside and inside the consciousness).
I think it would be more appropriate to say non-instinctual decisions are initiated by many responces. One of which can be the foci of will. But you'll probably go into all reactions are naturalistic and instictual since you seem to be a pure materialst from what I gather.
"You would say" anything that you feel might support your position. Care to elaborate on this theory of yours? Perhaps link some peer reviewed papers? It's a very active area of study, should be mountains of data if your conclusions could be supported. When you're done arguing that theory we can move on to whatever you want to use it to support eh?
I could also just as easily say something that doesn't support my position. I'm not married to my world view and will be happy to change it if proven otherwise, I think I'm intellectually honest enough to say that. To answer your question sure here's the first one I saw on google. Science can't explain the unmeasurable by design. The scientific method by defaults limits variables to known testable results. Which is fine for most things that we understand. You're perfectly justified to only believe the materialistic stance.
Logically though I see inconsistencies in what is known and look to logic to postulate possible further conclusions. These are the question we all should be asking ourselves:
1- Is there anything more than biological reaction (ie. instinct, fight or flight, etc.)?
2- Can you abstractly reason a scenario where you go against your instincts?
3- If you can go against your biological programming (read instincts) then where does that come from if not your freedom to choose?
I don't deny that decision produce reactions that can produce biological response. I don't deny that a biological response can illicit a decision prior to it becoming a conscious decision. Free will though, the ability to choose something counter to your nature, would at the moment you did it, become then part of your nature and be "natural" even though it was "unnatural" prior. I'm not certain whether free will would, by it's nature, require conscious decision, or possible sub conscious trigger. Thoughts?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
November 8, 2011 at 1:32 am (This post was last modified: November 8, 2011 at 1:37 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Describe a situation or decision which is against human "nature".
(why on earth do you think human behavior or decision-making, that you've decided to describe as "free will" would be "the un-measurable"? It clearly isn't, as mountains of peer reviewed papers and ad copy would seem to suggest)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
It's not the movement of the will that would be what is un-measurable, but the location or foundation and the parameters of the will, along with it's exact composition, which, to my knowledge has yet to be measured. I'm open to reviewing documentation though.
Describe a situation that is against your nature. OK, I'll use myself as an example. Subjective personal morality is part of what comprises myself. Instinctual responses of self-preservation instincts would be natural. Self-sacrifice would be counter to that instinct but in line with moral character. This is a choice to sacrifice counter to our lesser instinctual nature. This would be an example of free will. We could use murder if you wanted to go the other way with it and override our moral boundaries for something instinctual. I guess maybe we should define what is our nature?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
November 8, 2011 at 9:57 am (This post was last modified: November 8, 2011 at 9:58 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Why would you feel like a dividing line needed to be made in this case? Why describe one side of the coin as "moral character" and the other as "instinct". There is an elaborate set of assumptions behind the use of just those two words. Haven't you implied a value judgement in that statement that could lead one to believe that self-sacrifice is or could be part of your "nature"? I hunt for fun, murder just might be in mine (and I'm a nice guy while I'm at it, so obviously my moral character isn't compromised for it).
I agree that it would be nice to know the exact composition of anything. Why would I want to haggle over the definition of our "nature"?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
