13 of 16
13
Sam’s new thoughts on free will
Posted: 23 September 2012 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 181 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
toombaru - 23 September 2012 08:50 PM

Non-belief requires no faith and no supporting evidence.

True, but I am the one who is engaging in non-belief.  I choose not to believe either prevailing explanation for the perception of free will in human experience.  You, on the other hand, dogmatically attach to your belief with a fever (I meant fervor - perhaps a Freudian slip) matched only by theists.

toombaru - 23 September 2012 08:50 PM

You base your belief in self its free will on faith.
And that is simply because there is no evidence to support their reality.

I have no such belief and your continued insistence that I do belies either your ignorance or your faith.  I do not think you are ignorant.

[ Edited: 23 September 2012 09:11 PM by TheCoolinator]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 182 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
TheCoolinator - 23 September 2012 09:04 PM
toombaru - 23 September 2012 08:50 PM

Non-belief requires no faith and no supporting evidence.

True, but I am the one who is engaging in non-belief.  I choose not to believe either prevailing explanation for the perception of free will in human experience.  You, on the other hand, dogmatically attach to your belief with a fever (I meant fervor - perhaps a Freudian slip) matched only by theists.

toombaru - 23 September 2012 08:50 PM

You base your belief in self its free will on faith.
And that is simply because there is no evidence to support their reality.

I have no such belief and your continued insistence that I do belies either your ignorance or your faith.  I do not think you are ignorant.


You are not agnostic about fairies and ghosts.
I cannot prove that fairies and ghosts do not exist.
And yet you claim to have an open mind concerning the existence of the self and its free will.
Do you have any evidence to support the possible belief in either?

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 183 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

I am still thinking my way through the isues debated on this blog.

One question, if indeed we have no self-will, how do we effect change?

Is there any purpose to trying to influence others if everything is pre-determined based on history etc.?

Also ............ wil my secret code and lapel pin be issued to me or to: “whom/what it may concern”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 184 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
GenerousGeorge - 24 September 2012 09:16 AM

I am still thinking my way through the isues debated on this blog.

One question, if indeed we have no self-will, how do we effect change?

Is there any purpose to trying to influence others if everything is pre-determined based on history etc.?

Also ............ wil my secret code and lapel pin be issued to me or to: “whom/what it may concern”?


For the thinking mind this is a sticky wicket indeed.
(Have you ever watched a tar baby stack gummy bears?)
In the brain’s attempt to understand the origin of its imaginary self. it is confined to the very tools that create the illusion of autonomy.
From the perspective of the conceptual-thinking mind, free will is a given.
The brain looks out into its own conceptual overlay and assumes that there is a geocentric center of a world.
In fact that world is composed of nothing but swirling post-its.
The neurons observe their own reaction to the perceptual input and for all intents and purposes it look like choices are being made.
And almost like magic the self emerges as the chooser-in-chief.
In truth it is a psychological phantom around which an entire story is constructed.
It doesn’t have free will simply because it is a conceptual hologram.

And yes, I have your lapel pin.
If you ever come to the Central Coast of California, I would be happy to strike up the band welcome you to the Unborn Again

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 185 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

used to live in Monterey wife has house on Pebble Beach 17 Mile Drive LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 186 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-06-29

Hi George,
I’ve posted Carl Popper’s question previously on this thread but I’m resubmitting it because it addresses your inquiry—

“How can nonphysical things such as purposes, deliberations, plans and decisions play a part in bringing about physical changes in the physical world?”  In other words, how can things with no physical manifestation whatsoever effect change in physical things?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 187 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Thanks!  Goes beyond that now with Sams premise that self will is actually an illusion and “pre-determined”. If I understand that right??

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 188 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-06-29

I think it’s central to the free will question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 189 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
Wreck of M Deare - 24 September 2012 11:09 AM

Hi George,
I’ve posted Carl Popper’s question previously on this thread but I’m resubmitting it because it addresses your inquiry—

“How can nonphysical things such as purposes, deliberations, plans and decisions play a part in bringing about physical changes in the physical world?”  In other words, how can things with no physical manifestation whatsoever effect change in physical things?


The question assumes the presence of free will.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 190 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-06-29

Quite the contrary.  Popper was questioning non-physical agents of change like free will.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 191 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Maybe I still don’t understand Sams premise on “no free will”. Does it not presume that all actions are predetermined by a myriad of previous actions, that any decision we think we make have already in effect, have been made for us by previous history, thus leaving nothing for us to really decide. It is just the “domino like” reactions of our brain to previous actions that cause us to do what we do? Correct assumption??

So if this is the case, nobody can ever really effect anything of consequence, it is just a giant pinball machine. Is that the assumption here?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 192 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
toombaru - 23 September 2012 11:08 PM

You are not agnostic about fairies and ghosts.
I cannot prove that fairies and ghosts do not exist.

Quite right, but the fairies and ghosts in this analogy can just as easily be the existence of an illusion of free will.  What we are talking about here is a concrete fact (the perception of self) which requires and explanation, or an admission that we don’t know anything about it.  I have chosen latter, you have chosen to believe in one of the former – and without sufficient evidence.

toombaru - 23 September 2012 11:08 PM

And yet you claim to have an open mind concerning the existence of the self and its free will.
Do you have any evidence to support the possible belief in either?

One of the theories about the nature of free will has to be right.  We are either free individuals or we are fooled into believing that we are as some kind of neurological byproduct.  What’s interesting, is that whether our experience of free will is ontologically accurate, or an illusion, there is only one process which can explain the existence of either: natural selection. 


Therefore, in order to deny that free will is not as likely a thing to exist as is the illusion of free will you must assert that the former is physically impossible.  I’m not aware of any way to do so without referring to determinism which, if one accepts it, must be taken on faith in our current state of understanding. 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 193 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
TheCoolinator - 24 September 2012 12:50 PM
toombaru - 23 September 2012 11:08 PM

You are not agnostic about fairies and ghosts.
I cannot prove that fairies and ghosts do not exist.

Quite right, but the fairies and ghosts in this analogy can just as easily be the existence of an illusion of free will.  What we are talking about here is a concrete fact (the perception of self) which requires and explanation, or an admission that we don’t know anything about it.  I have chosen latter, you have chosen to believe in one of the former – and without sufficient evidence.

toombaru - 23 September 2012 11:08 PM

And yet you claim to have an open mind concerning the existence of the self and its free will.
Do you have any evidence to support the possible belief in either?

One of the theories about the nature of free will has to be right.  We are either free individuals or we are fooled into believing that we are as some kind of neurological byproduct.  What’s interesting, is that whether our experience of free will is ontologically accurate, or an illusion, there is only one process which can explain the existence of either: natural selection. 


Therefore, in order to deny that free will is not as likely a thing to exist as is the illusion of free will you must assert that the former is physically impossible.  I’m not aware of any way to do so without referring to determinism which, if one accepts it, must be taken on faith in our current state of understanding.


What happens is not defined by “free will” or “determinism”.
The brain’s reactions are not “pre-determined”.
They arise in relationship to the ever-emerging moment.
The brain changes and adapts based on its constantly streaming perceptual input.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 194 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-06-29

George writes: “Maybe I still don’t understand Sams premise on “no free will”. Does it not presume that all actions are predetermined by a myriad of previous actions, that any decision we think we make have already in effect, have been made for us by previous history, thus leaving nothing for us to really decide. It is just the “domino like” reactions of our brain to previous actions that cause us to do what we do? Correct assumption??”


In a word, “yes”.  As a research psychologist put it: “A person is not an originating agent; he is a locus, a point at which many genetic and environmental conditions come together in a joint effect.  As such, he remains unquestionably unique.  No one else (unless he has an identical twin) has his genetic endowment, and without exception no one else has his personal history.”

I’m not sure about the determinism question though.  In deference to Coolinator, I believe we can tolerate a degree of physical randomness operating within the universe.  Even though the environment may provide such randomness, it’s that same environment that colors our perceptions and decisions— in either case, we’re not “originating agents.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 03:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 195 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
toombaru - 24 September 2012 01:43 PM

What happens is not defined by “free will” or “determinism”.
The brain’s reactions are not “pre-determined”.
They arise in relationship to the ever-emerging moment.
The brain changes and adapts based on its constantly streaming perceptual input.

 

I’ll take your word for it.  I have every faith that you are right.

Profile
 
 
   
13 of 16
13
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed