The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[bennyboy]

If you pick a Mars Bar over a Reese’s, the existence or behavior of anti-matter doesn’t change the decision in the slightest. Not sure what that has to do with anything, really.

I didn't say anything about anti-matter. Anyway, I said let's assume there are NOT those things. So unless you are asserting them now, then why pick at it?

Fair enough. Now, let's look at the practical application of your idea: understanding something in the present, or predicting the future. If your viewpoint has any more merit than the concept of free will, then show how it applies to real-life situations.

I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. Also, you seem to be under the impression that free-will is self-evident because you really feel like its true. Have you ever seen an optical illusion? If somebody is convinced that their experience of the image they are seeing is the right one, then there is very little that can be said to convince them otherwise.

No. I'm saying that if you want to make assertions about determinism, then you'll have to prove them.

As for the fallibility of experience showing a lack of free will, I think the opposite case is just as good: the fallibility of the senses shows that the world as we experience it, and the deterministic universe you claim we are experiencing, are not the same.

There’s nothing smug about it. The underlying neurophysiological processes in your brain that are conditioned to desire candy, that develop a preference, or a skepticism, are the determinants. The conscious experience of the ultimate outcome creates the illusion of your conscious mind being the author of the effect. There is not a single shred of evidence you can bring to the table that supports that as being true. In fact, studies have shown instances of decisions being made moments, sometimes seconds, before your conscious mind is even aware of them.

I know of some of these studies, but you should link the ones you favor.

You are equating intent with awareness. The studies I know start with the subject being primed toward an action, and then signalling when they become aware of part of that process. But the intent is already there.

Again, not applicable to what I’m saying. You seem to be confused with fatalism. I’m not saying that everything is preordained in the manner that you are describing.

Nope. Unless you have random or hidden variables (or free will), fatalism and good ol' decision-making are identical.

Take your billiard ball example:

Free-Will suggests that the billiard ball could behave differently than what is prescribed by the laws of nature. The billiard ball is going to behave in accordance with the properties of a billiard ball. Those properties are the determinants. Your mind has different determinants that dictate its behavior: Genetics, experiences, biases, etc. The choices it makes are products of those determinants and can only be altered by altering the determinants. The decisions it makes are determined. They are not pre-ordained or set in stone on some master log in the universe (at least, that’s not what I’m saying). I’m saying that the notion of free-will stems from the belief that we are the conscious author of our thoughts. This is false. We associate our identities with a particular channel of information, but if we are truly honest with ourselves, the origin of the information flowing in that channel is a mystery, and the determinants of its effects do not begin in consciousness.

I don't think it's necessary to look at free will as you are looking at it. Free will is not the generation of ideas: it is the ability to arbitrarily choose among a variety of choices. I also think you're saying that the conscious mind is the self, and that any unconscious process is not the self, and therefore decisions made unconsciously or pre-consciously cannot be termed free will, since the self didn't have access to them during the process of formation. I disagree with this model of self, and this definition of free will.

You say that, in looking back, determinism is obvious. But that is rarely useful

Understanding the true nature of the mind, and exactly what determinants impact certain behaviors is one of the most important tenets of psychology. It’s quite useful.

Prove it. Show me that you can predict an individual's future choices. Predicting their past choices, and using this ability as evidence of a philosophical position, is much less impressive than producing usable results.