RE: Do you believe in free will?
March 13, 2012 at 11:02 am
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2012 at 11:05 am by Whateverist.)
I wonder to what degree any of us would think we are determined. Does a hard core determinist imagine that the exact timing and direction of every movement is inevitable? A particular new born colt had no choice but to jump up after a set number of seconds and bolt awkwardly away in a South-southeast direction for a distance of a 103 feet before returning to look for the teat? Or, in arguing for free will I thrust my arm in the air to demonstrate my liberty to do so, only to be told that given a complete understanding of the universe and me, my making that argument and the timing of that thrust could have been precisely predicted? Is this what we free willers are arguing against?
If so, intuitively I feel as though I am right back in the same position arguing against something that is not falsifiable against people who claim to know way more than I do about what is going on 'beneath the surface'. This is about as appealing as arguing against the existence of God. Time to play my "whatever" card and get to hell out of there fast.
Study the expression of instinct and learning in other species. Watch the way wolf who was skunked as a pup skulks away from the next one it sees. There is no doubt more liquidity in the choice of which need/drive to act on than the determinist would grant. But add to that the complications inherent when a drive runs up against new learning. The creature is torn but ultimately goes for the skunk again or backs away. Anyone who says they or the 'universe' knows exactly how any particular creature will respond given opposition between drives is once again laying claim to knowledge which I at least don't have and which is not falsifiable anyway, whatever.
Then you come to us where the many competing attractions and prohibitions imposed by culture make the resolution of competing drives all the more complex and hard to predict. Anyone who thinks the ultimate outcome is absolutely predestined down to the last detail has got a faith based belief, not a reasoned position. Unless it was inevitable that I write these exact words in response to the last several posts which you gentlemen too were compelled to write just as you did. (Bullshit.)
If so, intuitively I feel as though I am right back in the same position arguing against something that is not falsifiable against people who claim to know way more than I do about what is going on 'beneath the surface'. This is about as appealing as arguing against the existence of God. Time to play my "whatever" card and get to hell out of there fast.
Study the expression of instinct and learning in other species. Watch the way wolf who was skunked as a pup skulks away from the next one it sees. There is no doubt more liquidity in the choice of which need/drive to act on than the determinist would grant. But add to that the complications inherent when a drive runs up against new learning. The creature is torn but ultimately goes for the skunk again or backs away. Anyone who says they or the 'universe' knows exactly how any particular creature will respond given opposition between drives is once again laying claim to knowledge which I at least don't have and which is not falsifiable anyway, whatever.
Then you come to us where the many competing attractions and prohibitions imposed by culture make the resolution of competing drives all the more complex and hard to predict. Anyone who thinks the ultimate outcome is absolutely predestined down to the last detail has got a faith based belief, not a reasoned position. Unless it was inevitable that I write these exact words in response to the last several posts which you gentlemen too were compelled to write just as you did. (Bullshit.)
