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!
(July 27, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: What?!
I think consciousness isn't a mystery at all and is already explained, at some level, by what we already know about the brain. It's simply a set of functions of the brain, I believe, something evolution built into us to be better able to survive. That we make much ado about nothing, is simply a side-effect.
Sean Carroll is a compatibilist; he seems like a nice guy, a good atheist.
Lmao, what are you talking about, for the third time in a row now?
July 29, 2016 at 4:15 am (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 4:16 am by bennyboy.)
(July 29, 2016 at 3:55 am)quip Wrote:
(July 28, 2016 at 11:26 pm)bennyboy Wrote: "will" is the capacity of a sentient agent to realize intent-- for example, I don't really know how to "move" a leg-- I want it to move, and it moves.
Then the will falls under the constraint of intended realization. Moreover, are your intentions freely wrought? How can any of this be considered free?
Intentions are of the self-- feelings, memories, personality, etc. I don't think it makes sense to categorize them as "free" any more than it does to categorize my foot as free. It is the capacity, once the intent is in place, to REALIZE it which I call will. Ans since will is the bridge between intent and its physical expression, any physical impediment or obstacle to the expression of intent limits its freedom.
Quote:Your argument is akin to a man held within a cell proclaiming that he holds the willful capacity to freely move about his environs all for the effort of denying his ambient constraints.
At best....it's superficial.
It might seem superficial until you don't have free will. If you are compelled or blocked from making decisions and acting on them, freedom will be real enough concept for you, I'm sure.
July 29, 2016 at 4:21 am (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 4:23 am by quip.)
(July 29, 2016 at 4:15 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(July 29, 2016 at 3:55 am)quip Wrote: Then the will falls under the constraint of intended realization. Moreover, are your intentions freely wrought? How can any of this be considered free?
Intentions are of the self-- feelings, memories, personality, etc. I don't think it makes sense to categorize them as "free" any more than it does to categorize my foot as free.
Then don't introduce intention as a supporting argument for free-will. Senselessness.
Quote:
Quote:Your argument is akin to a man held within a cell proclaiming that he holds the willful capacity to freely move about his environs all for the effort of denying his ambient constraints.
At best....it's superficial.
It might seem superficial until you don't have free will. If you are compelled or blocked from making decisions and acting on them, freedom will be real enough concept for you, I'm sure.
The will is quite significant...the bland assertion that it's free...well, not so much.
July 29, 2016 at 5:41 am (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 5:44 am by bennyboy.)
(July 29, 2016 at 4:21 am)quip Wrote:
(July 29, 2016 at 4:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: Intentions are of the self-- feelings, memories, personality, etc. I don't think it makes sense to categorize them as "free" any more than it does to categorize my foot as free.
Then don't introduce intention as a supporting argument for free-will. Senselessness.
Intention isn't a supporting argument for free will. Will is the expression of intent. Free will is the expression of intent unfettered by obstacles or compulsions from the world outside the acting agent.
(July 29, 2016 at 5:52 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: There are many obstacles to the will though.
No doubt. Sometimes the will is not free. For example, except among very exceptional people, the intent to get away from extreme pain is absolutely dictated by external sources.
(July 28, 2016 at 12:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Will has nothing to do with decisions, at least as I define it. It has to do with intent.
You can apply all this thinking to every aspect of personhood, not only free will. The sense of self is also an illusion, and even consciousness itself can be thought of that way-- just a byproduct of brain function. Even a solid surface exists only as an idea. But these are all things which are part of human existence, and pretending they're not there is like saying, "Sand shouldn't exist. . . so all that sandy stuff out there is bullshit!"
But this isn't a very interesting view of reality. My view is based on experience, not on an interpretation of a model of the universe. I go out, walk around, and do whatever seems good according to my nature.
It's a strange question to ask me, since I've never asserted that free will means breaking the causal chain. My terms have been well defined, I think, so asking me to answer on your terms is a little pointless.
You seem to assume that you decide what your intention is. You don't. Your intention originates in your brain (or you) however your brain/you still follow the causal chain therefore your intentions aren't free either. Your intentions are also fully determined, and if indeterminism is true and affects your intention then it's partly random and there's no free in random except free from determinism but not free for choice. So even by your definition "free intention" doesn't exist either in other words your intention isn't free.
Yeah, you're totally correct. Everything is the same thing in a sense, water is water not because it isn't made of the same thing fire is made of (in this context I'm talking about particles, that's the important bit) but because the particles that make water are organized in a unique way forming water, differentiating it from fire, we're just describing them with words. So, yes you can say everything is just an idea. I am a human being, the earth is a planet, we're called different words because we have different properties (the particles we consist of are organized in unique ways, giving us different properties) it's just our way of communicating. But fundamentally we're the same thing. I have as much free will as the earth has, we're both just a set of particles acting/moving according to the universe.
Talking about consciousness. If consciousness didn't exist a human would still be able to make decisions, act etc. It would just not be aware of it. Why? Because every single action is just the result of particles moving e.g your neural net interacting making your arm go here and there, you get the point. We're just conscious observers. I personally believe that consciousness is just a by product. Complexity and intelligence doesn't necessarily require consciousness afaik.
Anyway, sand does exist. When I say sand ultimately you can say I'm refering to particles organized in a certain way forming what we describe sand as. In the end they're all just particles organized in different ways forming different properties that we refer to with different words.
And it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, whether it's an interesting view of reality, if it's true it's true. And when you evaluate and something seems good to your nature even the process of that evaluation isn't ultimately your decision, it was either partly random or bound to happen exactly the way it happened.
Well then, if you agree that you cannot break the causal chain, problem solved. All your intentions, actions, desires and such are a part of the causal chain and you cannot do anything to do otherwise but you can imagine different things to do. However even those imaginations i.e what you'll imagine would also be a part of that causal chain, in other words not under your control ultimately speaking.
I gather, from your post, and a number of posts from others, that what is being expounded on here, is that choices are entirely a mechanistic process brought about by physical forces within the brain. That given X in you will get Y out (with a very complicated equation in between). Wouldn't this also apply to any logic or rational you are using to determine this? If what you are saying is true, then it would seem that you also have to free will to say whether yours or benny's logic is right or wrong. Or that you can say it, but have no way to determine if one is more correct than the other. Would you agree?
July 29, 2016 at 10:46 am (This post was last modified: July 29, 2016 at 10:51 am by bennyboy.)
(July 29, 2016 at 7:01 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You sound like a compatabilist, compatabilist free will is real.
Given a physical universe and nothing more, I'm a compatibilist. But EVEN IF there were a transdimensional, magical soul, I don't think "free will" could mean "free from causality." Whatever the self is, whether we fully understand it or not, it almost surely is part of a causal process-- unless it is eternal, which is another argument entirely. Now, I'm not making any argument about soul or anything-- I'm just saying that my view on free will pretty much works either way.
Right now, the popular view at least here is the physical monism. In that context, I'd say yeah I'm pretty close to Dennett or someone like that.
