(September 17, 2013 at 8:14 am)ManMachine Wrote: We do seem to have the capacity to surprise ourselves with our decisions, or at least critically review them, however we arive at them. Somewhere between this juxtaposition of processes the death of determinism lies, at least in terms of our perception of it.

The fact is that the evidence is not conclusive leads me to the conclusion that neuroscience is not relevant to this kind of debate, although it seems - for the avoidance of dissonance perhaps - the majority of people want free will to exist, the question that is begging here is, why?


MM

Any attempt to totally encapsulate our first person experience in a third person account has got to be incomplete.

But I think most people recognize their so-called free will to be very limited. We're not free to prefer vanilla if we don't. It sure is hard to pass on dessert even if we really, really want to lose weight.

So who is this other "Me", who at times, seems to have more control over "my" desires?

(September 17, 2013 at 11:12 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: So who is this other "Me", who at times, seems to have more control over "my" desires?

*Reads a copy of Dianetics*

It's your reactive mind apparently.

(September 17, 2013 at 11:37 am)Zone Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 11:12 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: So who is this other "Me", who at times, seems to have more control over "my" desires?

*Reads a copy of Dianetics*

It's your reactive mind apparently.

I still remember those lame commercials trying to sell this junk book back a couple decades ago.

(September 17, 2013 at 8:39 am)Zone Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 8:14 am)ManMachine Wrote: the majority of people want free will to exist, the question that is begging here is, why?

Why would you not want to be locked inside a prison cell?

Some recent experimental evidence (I'll dig out a reference for you) seems to show that even when we are told free will does not exist, we still make moral judgements as if it did.

There is some kind of link between social morality and free will - at least as far as our ability to attribute certain actions others take to an idea we call free will - and make judgements about those actions.

Perhaps we coming at this back to front. Perhaps the idea of free will is a necessary component of our social evolution? I've nothing to support that other than some reverse (and possibly fallacious) reasoning at this point, but it's certainly in the mix to explore as an idea.


MM

---

(September 17, 2013 at 11:01 am)whateverist Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 8:14 am)ManMachine Wrote: We do seem to have the capacity to surprise ourselves with our decisions, or at least critically review them, however we arive at them. Somewhere between this juxtaposition of processes the death of determinism lies, at least in terms of our perception of it.

The fact is that the evidence is not conclusive leads me to the conclusion that neuroscience is not relevant to this kind of debate, although it seems - for the avoidance of dissonance perhaps - the majority of people want free will to exist, the question that is begging here is, why?


MM

Any attempt to totally encapsulate our first person experience in a third person account has got to be incomplete.

But I think most people recognize their so-called free will to be very limited. We're not free to prefer vanilla if we don't. It sure is hard to pass on dessert even if we really, really want to lose weight.

I agree, which goes back to my original question, does and should neuroscience have anything to contribute to the debate on free will?

MM

(September 17, 2013 at 4:29 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Some recent experimental evidence (I'll dig out a reference for you) seems to show that even when we are told free will does not exist, we still make moral judgements as if it did.

There is some kind of link between social morality and free will - at least as far as our ability to attribute certain actions others take to an idea we call free will - and make judgements about those actions.

Perhaps we coming at this back to front. Perhaps the idea of free will is a necessary component of our social evolution? I've nothing to support that other than some reverse (and possibly fallacious) reasoning at this point, but it's certainly in the mix to explore as an idea.

It may be a byproduct of advanced self awareness from a complex brain, an ant wouldn't have any freewill it would just do it thang like most animals and all plants would.

The idea of Free Will seems to stem from the notion that we are the conscious author of our thoughts, which is demonstrably false. Being merely the source of the thoughts isn't at all what is normally thought of when discussing free-will. It's the conscious agent part that gives rise to the notion of Free Will. The thoughts coming from your brain, isn't enough to justify taking credit for the latter event of becoming consciously aware of them. If that were the case, one might as well feel guilty for catching a cold, after-all, had their white blood cells (which are also equally a part of them) not let their guard down, they'd still be well! Being "free" to do as you wish is contingent upon your wishes, and that which has molded them. Our decisions are determined by previous events and processes, the evidence is in favor of determinism. This is not to be confused with fatalism, which suggests we're doomed to a particular fate. Being aware that Free Will is an illusion has been shown to bring about morally dishonest behavior in some test subjects. However, if those people already have the mind of somebody that operates honestly only because they will be held accountable for their actions, then the experience of having free will removed from them may seem like the excuse they were looking for to un-censor their deeper desires. Imagine the different ways people would behave if they were given the super-power of invisibility! People are wired different. Some people would behave in a manner consistent with society's laws, and others would operate on their own accord. Remember The Emperor? He would never walk around the streets naked under normal conditions. Once convinced that he was wearing some nice threads, he had no problem throwing his inhibitions to the wind! Whether he realized it or not, he WAS naked, and he was either the type of person that could be convinced to walk around naked, or he wasn't. Similarly, the common notion of free will seems to be debunked, and you either are the type of person that will act morally, or you're not.

---

There is an easy test for free-will. Ask an intelligent being whether they think they have freewill and if they answer in the positive assume they do. If you asked an AI computer simulation it likely wouldn't understand the nature of the question, it's a bit like the Turing Test.

(September 17, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Zone Wrote: There is an easy test for free-will. Ask an intelligent being whether they think they have freewill and if they answer in the positive assume they do. If you asked an AI computer simulation it likely wouldn't understand the nature of the question, it's a bit like the Turing Test.

I'm not sure that's a very good way to discern truth. How can I know if the person I ask has any idea what they're talking about? If a person answers in the affirmative to the question, all that means is that they've comprehended the question, and have an opinion which prompted a response. Nothing has been established with regards to the validity of the claim they've just affirmed. If I ask somebody if there's a God, and they say yes, are you suggesting that's enough to assume they are right? Would a computer have a distinct and true answer for such a question? If so, how?

---

Keep in mind, Computers can't form opinions based on presuppositions of their own, and therefore, cannot form beliefs based upon them, or anything other than the data they have been programmed to utilize. I just asked Siri out of curiosity, and she gave a very good answer-"I'd rather not say." Funny. I asked her if God exists, and she said "I have a strict policy of the separation of church and silicon." ...lol.

---

The answers provided by a computer in the Turing test being different from a human's, in this case, are not indicative of anything other than a human being's tendency to offer answers to questions they are not qualified to answer, and a computer's lack of ability to engage in such a thing.

(September 17, 2013 at 7:10 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Zone Wrote: There is an easy test for free-will. Ask an intelligent being whether they think they have freewill and if they answer in the positive assume they do. If you asked an AI computer simulation it likely wouldn't understand the nature of the question, it's a bit like the Turing Test.

I'm not sure that's a very good way to discern truth. How can I know if the person I ask has any idea what they're talking about? If a person answers in the affirmative to the question, all that means is that they've comprehended the question

But that could be test as anything that doesn't have freewill may not understand what the concept of freewill means. So say an android or something would just stare at you blankly if they just followed their set programs and if we didn't have freewill then we wouldn't be discussing it because it wouldn't occur to us.