5Likes
May 7th, 2013, 05:53 PM
This may well, perhaps, be something more suited to the Philosophy section, but I thought about taking a different viewpoint. Though philosophical opninions or reasons are welcome, where do you stand in the argument between Determinism and Free Will? Which applies to humans? Which applies to other creatures? Why?
I don't think there is any conflict between the two. Everything we decide is a result of processes in our brains and even if deterministic (likely) are entirely ours and hence expressions of our free will. There is neither evidence of any randomness that relavent to our brain, nor would it make much sense to claim such randomness occurs and is simultaneously controllable (the mislabeled "free part."). If there are random processes they are likely non-controllable and could not be called free will in how we commonly explain it.
If you would though, please explain further how you plan to fit this into the psychological science.
I am in agreement with you. I don't recall saying how I would fit this into psychological science. I assume that the idea that humans are deterministic, behaviorally speaking, was at the very least the original basis of psychology. I think this would be more applicable in courts of law, though it would deffinitely be complicated, and perhaps ultimately irrelevant.Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
0% Free will
If any thing exists in space its properties also exists
Even if there is GOD, he to cannot have free will
I believe that if there were 2 paralell universes that were completely identical in every single way, then the exact same things would happen.
I believe that if we rewinded the world back 2000 years, the exact same outcome of events up to today would remain identical.
I believe in determinism, and if determinism is true then I dont have a choice in believing that. Our personality is shaped by our genes and our surroundings, if you go back in time and start over with your memory erased - then your personality will develop the same way - and as our thoughts are just chemical reactions in out brain - we would do the exact same choices.
Just because a person can imagine 10 different ways of dealing with something, doesent mean we have the choice to choose all these. It doesent mean that one choice is taken at random and that it will be different every time. Some people think that just because we can IMAGINE different approaches, this proves free will. I disagree.
You can believe what you want, but it is doesn't square with the facts. Quantum effects, though relatively minor in their effects on macrosystems nevertheless do present themselves in dynamic natural systems over longer periods. So no you could no go back 2000 years, rerun everything and hope to get the same things.
Just because a person can imagine 10 different ways of dealing with something, doesn't mean we have the choice to choose all these.
Actually that is what it means--your brain weighed the options and decided on one--even if completely predetermines, it's still completely the brain and has to be considered freewill.
Due to the nature of symbiotic relationships within our shared coevolutionary biom, and my conviction that all life evolves to fill available ecological niches, I tend to come in on the side of determinism, and maybe collective unconsciousness, which is a more fluid determinism.
That being said, the "free will" part comes into play based on "intent" or the lack thereof, awareness, or the lack thereof, etc...
The more choices that you have, the more free will you have.
You determine what to do in life by your choices which you make with your own free will.
Brains don't think, Minds do. So LARGELY not determined to MUCH extent by physical states, but by mental processes. Also, the will is very free, in a very real sense. The random processes generated by the brain can be controlled non randomly by the mind, through the exertion of free will and mental force. Should I go and wash my hands 50 times again, or should I go and do some gardening instead?
Going to sleep now. See you guys tomorrow. It is 02:46 AM in Delhi right now!! Time for light reading, light snacks and some cold water. Thirsty and hungry too!!
I am making a HUGE offer out here. I will pay and ship any book I can think of any where in the world at my own cost. Whosoever is interested can let me know asap....
There is no difference between the two--the mind is a subset of the brain. You might want to define the mind with particular patterns, but they still take place in the brain and are part of it. Your statement is the equivalent of someone saying.... the atmosphere doesn't produce 300 mph winds, tornadoes do--it makes absolutely no sense.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; June 8th, 2013 at 08:39 PM.
The collective brain functions under free-will, in that all thoughts are our own. However, the conscious mind "the part we experience" does not have a will independent from other parts of the brain. The conscious mind, therefore, does not have free will.
An... interesting change in avatar pic... shlunka...
These threads need to define free will before talking about it.
Anyways, here is what i think is the only possible way for free will to be legitemate.
If i am the only thing that exists ( i am everything and everything is me ) then that implies that i have free will, because the only thing that inspires my choices is my self.
Apart from your biology, genetics, surroundings (or lack of), physical abilities, previous actions, circumstances...
Those things included to be considered as partly descriptions of one whole.Apart from your biology, genetics, surroundings (or lack of), physical abilities, previous actions, circumstances...
The philosophy behind this is that human mind separates the world percieved in to parts ( like theres me and then theres the environment ) when they supposedly are sections of a single multidimensional body.
And how does that alter what I pointed out?Those things included to be considered as partly descriptions of one whole.Apart from your biology, genetics, surroundings (or lack of), physical abilities, previous actions, circumstances...
The philosophy behind this is that human mind separates the world percieved in to parts ( like theres me and then theres the environment ) when it supposedly is the same thing.
I define "Free Will" as Will that is independent, or 'free,' of exterior influence.
Honestly, now i am not sure about what you meant with your post. Why do you say 'apart'?And how does that alter what I pointed out?Those things included to be considered as partly descriptions of one whole.The philosophy behind this is that human mind separates the world percieved in to parts ( like theres me and then theres the environment ) when it supposedly is the same thing.Apart from your biology, genetics, surroundings (or lack of), physical abilities, previous actions, circumstances...
My presented concept includes everything as sections of one single, closed, self-sustained and infinitely dynamic entity.
Further more please see my posts again as i edit them to correct bad choices of wording and grammar.
Last edited by bulle; June 12th, 2013 at 04:08 PM.
He used "apart" in a sarcastic way. When you said "the only thing that inspires my choices is myself.", you implied that you alone made choices. Suggesting that your conscious mind alone was responsible for your behaviors, which would enable free-will of the conscious mind. However, the Duck pointed out that there are numerous components that constitute your personality/decision-making, and that it's not compartmentalized exclusively within your conscious mind. I.E, your biology limits your possible responses, and in fact, predisposes you towards specific responses that you simply cannot voluntary control. You have no volition when it comes to decision making, you make no unadulterated conscious decisions, you have no conscious free-will.Honestly, now i am not sure about what you meant with your post. Why do you say 'apart'?And how does that alter what I pointed out?Those things included to be considered as partly descriptions of one whole.The philosophy behind this is that human mind separates the world percieved in to parts ( like theres me and then theres the environment ) when it supposedly is the same thing.Apart from your biology, genetics, surroundings (or lack of), physical abilities, previous actions, circumstances...
My presented concept includes everything as being closed, self-sustained and infinitely dynamic.
Further more please see my posts again as i edit them to correct bad choices of wording and grammar.
His second response insinuated that your second response changed nothing. And, that is mostly because...it didn't. Despite the human brain's capability to separate environment from the self, this has nothing to do with conscious decision making. Well, it does, but it doesn't alter the reality that the conscious mind is simply incapable of making an unadulterated decision against the predispositions inherited by genes/environment. Hope that clarified things, and by "conscious mind" I'm referring to the what you experience, the part of your mind that says "I want vanilla ice cream" inside your head.
I am definately not proposing that my mind is making any choices. It is less inaccurate to suggest that the environment makes the choices for me since it basically tunnels what makes up my mind through it self.
Yes, there is no component of me or the environment that is exclusively responsible for anything at all, including the suggested possibility of the multitude of outcomes of my percieved excistence.
Again, if absolutely everything (including your self and your mind) is considered as one single unit and infinite then does it not become reasonobly analogous to the concept of free will? Infinity is the key word in my hypothesis, because the way i see it suggest unimaginable continuation and complexity in physics. The structure of an infinite universe can only be affected by it self, and since the factors are infinite then the structure can not be predicted or determined for that matter.
In my world things can only be predicted to some extent. There is always a margin reserved for uncerteinty, even my current views.
It isn't premonition that negates free will, it is predisposition.
Could you please clarify the relation of your statement to my post.It isn't premonition that negates free will, it is predisposition.
determinism?
Did we, as a species choose our ecological niche?
Did we, as a species choose to become(what i like to call) the lords of fire, ever more capable of drawing energy from myriad sources. And perhaps so powerful that we can(as re the "global warming" crowd) alter the very climate of our shared co-evolutionary biom. Maybe, at first by accident, and then by intent?
Are we, as a species, predisposed to be exactly who we are and doing exactly what we were meant to do by interactions of our shared co-evolutionary biom?
I have the choice to be here or go somewhere else, but, really how much of what we do without even thinking of it is predestined? Are we controled by our gut bacteria?
EXACTLY! So many of these type discussions hinge on some supernatural definition of free will. It's the classic straw man argument.
| « Consciousness again. | Are we all racial hypocrite?! » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
