RE: Free Will, Decision making and religion
March 14, 2015 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2015 at 1:29 pm by Whateverist.)
Personally I question the unity of identity but find very little support for that position .. even among those who are happy to cop to determinism. I think the consciously held concept of self is overly determined by just one aspect of self. But I don't question the reality of that portion of self, nor the rest of it.
We seem to experience free will because we actually do have a great deal of latitude to act deliberately for consciously determined reasons. We get to shoot our arm up in the air any damned time we want to. However, we are also determined because experience is screened pre-consciously and its felt valuation is entirely determined by our greater consciousness. What memories and past experiences are presented for conscious consideration represent another pre-conscious choice. The body - mind feedback loop is still another.
The free will vs determinism debate is an ongoing dynamic within our very organism. Conscious free will is an adaption of our species, a delegation of a portion of consciousness to deal with rapidly changing circumstances in a learned rather than instinctual manner. The purpose of the conscious mind is to serve the ends of the organism, not to decide which ends those should be. However we can and do form opinions about what the purposes of our choices should be. We can even endeavor to over rule or ignore the ends which our organism would choose, and sometimes we should. This capacity promotes prosocial behavior which also feeds back on survival value and no doubt is a large reason for the amount of consciousness devoted to this very task.
The point is that the answer to the free will vs determinism debate is both, simultaneously and for all time.
Wait. Are you saying that free will never exists because in fact there is always a trajectory leading to just one outcome? Or are you saying sometimes the choice of possible resolutions for a decision really can be rich in some cases and few in others?
Interesting. My only objection would be to the need of maintaining any illusion. I don't require the illusion of free will in order to go on choosing as if my life depended on it. The illusion only enters in when you suppose that conscious considerations are the only ones in play and that your conscious assessment is the only one being made. They aren't. But that doesn't negate the relative freedom of the conscious mind. Of course pre-conscious screening and valuation enters in to color our perception of each outcomes desirability even as we suppose we are weighing our choices in an entirely free manner.
One might even argue that the loss of such pre-conscious participation would be a real set back and a kind of malady. Pure, detached choice making would not be a desirable state of affairs.
PS: I liked and entirely agree with your comments regarding justice.
We seem to experience free will because we actually do have a great deal of latitude to act deliberately for consciously determined reasons. We get to shoot our arm up in the air any damned time we want to. However, we are also determined because experience is screened pre-consciously and its felt valuation is entirely determined by our greater consciousness. What memories and past experiences are presented for conscious consideration represent another pre-conscious choice. The body - mind feedback loop is still another.
The free will vs determinism debate is an ongoing dynamic within our very organism. Conscious free will is an adaption of our species, a delegation of a portion of consciousness to deal with rapidly changing circumstances in a learned rather than instinctual manner. The purpose of the conscious mind is to serve the ends of the organism, not to decide which ends those should be. However we can and do form opinions about what the purposes of our choices should be. We can even endeavor to over rule or ignore the ends which our organism would choose, and sometimes we should. This capacity promotes prosocial behavior which also feeds back on survival value and no doubt is a large reason for the amount of consciousness devoted to this very task.
The point is that the answer to the free will vs determinism debate is both, simultaneously and for all time.
(March 14, 2015 at 11:44 am)Smaug Wrote: Considering the above definition it may be said that Free Will exists when there's more than one possible way to choose between. Although it's clear from the beginning that there is only one actual way (a "trajectory").
Wait. Are you saying that free will never exists because in fact there is always a trajectory leading to just one outcome? Or are you saying sometimes the choice of possible resolutions for a decision really can be rich in some cases and few in others?
(March 14, 2015 at 8:38 am)JuliaL Wrote: Our big forebrains were honed and sculpted by eons of natural selection to model the current status of ourselves and our environment. Those brains better able to predict the future from perceived regularities in these current, constantly updated, models and those better suited to guiding near future actions based on those models survived and, more importantly, replicated better. The sense of self and the illusion of free agency able to affect future events has been positively selected for and highly preserved. Self preservation is easier to accomplish if one recognizes there is a self to preserve. Intentional actions are only possible if there is a self with motivation to intend. Free will is the subjective experience of this motivation.
Interesting. My only objection would be to the need of maintaining any illusion. I don't require the illusion of free will in order to go on choosing as if my life depended on it. The illusion only enters in when you suppose that conscious considerations are the only ones in play and that your conscious assessment is the only one being made. They aren't. But that doesn't negate the relative freedom of the conscious mind. Of course pre-conscious screening and valuation enters in to color our perception of each outcomes desirability even as we suppose we are weighing our choices in an entirely free manner.
One might even argue that the loss of such pre-conscious participation would be a real set back and a kind of malady. Pure, detached choice making would not be a desirable state of affairs.
PS: I liked and entirely agree with your comments regarding justice.
