|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 11, 2014 17:11:25 GMT -5
We make conscious choices every day. Determinists claim that these choices are "determined" and that our experience of free will is only an illusion. So the next question is: What exactly is this illusion and how does it work? After all, we can explain optical illusions and show how they happen. But I have never seen an explanation of the "free will illusion.
Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2014 20:14:36 GMT -5
Is arguing for determinism the same as arguing against free will? Bob, you used both terms in your post. But are they really the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 11, 2014 22:45:17 GMT -5
Is arguing for determinism the same as arguing against free will? Bob, you used both terms in your post. But are they really the same thing? If determinism is correct, then there is no free will, so yes, they are equivalent. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2014 22:59:10 GMT -5
That was not my question. Please think about my question a little more seriously rather than just brushing me off lightly. Here's something to think about in the meanwhile...what do you think about indeterminism as to free will.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 12, 2014 12:48:25 GMT -5
That was not my question. Please think about my question a little more seriously rather than just brushing me off lightly. Here's something to think about in the meanwhile...what do you think about indeterminism as to free will. Supporting determinism is one way to argue against free will, but it isn't the only way. You could also say that human action is random and that conscious decisions play no role. So determinism does not include all the arguments against free will. However, most of the arguments against free will that I have seen are based on one form of determinism or another. Indeterminism is necessary for free will to exist. However, if it is merely the indeterminism of chance, there there is still no free will. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 13:27:59 GMT -5
Thanks, Bob. That's what I was looking for...somewhat. It's a start. I hope Dave is still interested.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 12, 2014 14:53:49 GMT -5
I cannot speak to what determinists who claim that free will is an illusion are talking about. What I can say is this. When I think about how I think and what it feels like to think it does not strike me as what conscious free will should feel like. In other words there is no illusion of free will because it does not feel like to me that I experience conscious free will.
If I do have conscious free will and am able to experience what it feels like to have conscious free will then what I think it would feel like is that when I have a thought or make a decision it would feel like I constructed that thought of its constituent parts (neurons firing, for example). Instead when I have thoughts like this: "There's a piece of candy ... should I take it without paying for it? ... no, that would be morally wrong" I know that my neurons are firing which generates those thoughts but where the dots are is neural activity that I am unaware of. The next thought just pops into my conscious awareness without my being aware of how it actually formed.
In engineer-speak the dots represent "black boxes" where I have a thought "there's a piece of candy" that gets fed into the black box of my brain (which I am not aware of consciously) and output is the following thought "should I take it without paying for it?" which then gets fed back into the black box which results in the thought "yes, no one is looking and I really want that candy."
Because I am unaware of what is happening at the neural level this means that a major part of the experience of being conscious is not available to my conscious mind. This says absolutely nothing about whether I have free will, only that I do not experience free will or the lack of free will because too much of my brain's activity is hidden from my conscious awareness.
Thus there is no illusion, only ignorance of what is going on in my brain.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 12, 2014 15:04:45 GMT -5
Is arguing for determinism the same as arguing against free will? Bob, you used both terms in your post. But are they really the same thing? I do not think that determinism or indeterminism is relevant to the issue of conscious free will. When we speak of free will I think what we are usually talking about, or at least what I am referring to, is the kind of conscious brain activity that allows for moral culpability. When determining this culpability the question becomes where does the origin of the causal chain that resulted in my behavior terminate? If it can be shown that my decision to steal that piece of candy did not connect causally to any event before my conscious mind's forming the question of stealing it then I have conscious free will and am morally culpable for stealing the candy. If instead the cause of my decision traces back to neural activity and then to previous neural activity (all of which I am not consciously aware of), external environmental forces, on back to my birth, my DNA, the life histories of my parents, humans, proto-humans, ... , the Big Bang (or whatever) then this would mean that my conscious mind did not originate the causal chaing that led to the decision to steal and that I do not have conscious free will. While I might still be held responsible for the theft, my conscious mind would not be the original cause of my actions and would not be the morally culpable causal agent. What this means is that whether the universe is inherently random or not plays no role in the question of conscious free will. All that matters is the ultimate causal origin of my conscious decisions.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 12, 2014 16:32:41 GMT -5
I cannot speak to what determinists who claim that free will is an illusion are talking about. What I can say is this. When I think about how I think and what it feels like to think it does not strike me as what conscious free will should feel like. In other words there is no illusion of free will because it does not feel like to me that I experience conscious free will. Did you always believe that, even before you became familiar with the free will debate? Did you feel that way when you were say 5 years old, before you knew any science? Or is your feeling colored by knowledge and ideologies that you may have acquired? It's not one thought that pops into your consciousness. It is two thoughts. One is "I want to take that candy without paying for it" and the other is "No, that would be morally wrong." With both of those thoughts in your conscious field, you have to make a decision (since you cannot do both at the same time). And you can decide either way. That is free will. In other words Dave, it is not necessary for you to be aware of all of your brain activity relating to this case. All you have to do is make a decision at that critical point. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 12, 2014 16:40:48 GMT -5
Is arguing for determinism the same as arguing against free will? Bob, you used both terms in your post. But are they really the same thing? I do not think that determinism or indeterminism is relevant to the issue of conscious free will. When we speak of free will I think what we are usually talking about, or at least what I am referring to, is the kind of conscious brain activity that allows for moral culpability. When determining this culpability the question becomes where does the origin of the causal chain that resulted in my behavior terminate? If it can be shown that my decision to steal that piece of candy did not connect causally to any event before my conscious mind's forming the question of stealing it then I have conscious free will and am morally culpable for stealing the candy. If instead the cause of my decision traces back to neural activity and then to previous neural activity (all of which I am not consciously aware of), external environmental forces, on back to my birth, my DNA, the life histories of my parents, humans, proto-humans, ... , the Big Bang (or whatever) then this would mean that my conscious mind did not originate the causal chaing that led to the decision to steal and that I do not have conscious free will. While I might still be held responsible for the theft, my conscious mind would not be the original cause of my actions and would not be the morally culpable causal agent. What this means is that whether the universe is inherently random or not plays no role in the question of conscious free will. All that matters is the ultimate causal origin of my conscious decisions. The termination of the causal chain is the moment you make a conscious decision. At that point, it doesn't matter what went on before (unconscious neural activity, the Big Bang, etc.). You are at a point where a conscious decision has to be made. And that decision is up to you. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 21:13:17 GMT -5
Which is not provable in any way whatsoever.
In any case, what is the philosophical imperative for the need to believe in determinism? What is the payoff?
By the way, why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition? It's very obvious that there are restraints to free will to do or be anything one wants. Why can't it be both determinism in some aspects...biological, sociological, environmental, etc. But within certain parameters, why not free will? Again, why the seemingly imperative need to choose to make automatons of conscious beings?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 12, 2014 22:29:12 GMT -5
Which is not provable in any way whatsoever. In any case, what is the philosophical imperative for the need to believe in determinism? What is the payoff? By the way, why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition? It's very obvious that there are restraints to free will to do or be anything one wants. Why can't it be both determinism in some aspects...biological, sociological, environmental, etc. But within certain parameters, why not free will? Again, why the seemingly imperative need to choose to make automatons of conscious beings? Lily, I love you! That was brilliant! You said it better than I ever could. I mean it. Especially that last sentence. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 13:34:24 GMT -5
Thanks, Bob. I just follow the philosophy of common sense, as in--you know--living in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 15:17:12 GMT -5
Bob,
I'm having a difficult understanding your question. I am not able to form any informed opinion about anything without first learning about that thing and developing the tools to think about it. As a child I would not have known enough about the free will debate to describe my thoughts about my thoughts as being free or not.
Each thought is one thought (as per the simplified model I'm presenting here). There are not two but three (and of course there can be me many, many more intermediate thoughts -- I'm just presenting a simplified example here in order to illuminate the model I'm proposing).
But you haven't explained anything and you certainly haven't addressed my point. Where does that decision come from? If its causal origin terminates in my conscious mind then I have conscious free will. If the causal origin can be linked to a chain that extends beyond my conscious mind then I don't. I'm just trying to frame the debate in such a way for both sides to understand what is being claimed.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 15:21:47 GMT -5
Bob
Yeah, that's your claim. And if I understand it correctly then your position is that the conscious mind is a separate entity that while initially caused by outside forces (parents, DNA, birth, etc.) at some point it "severs" its causal ties with those outside forces and becomes the causal origin of its thoughts. It still maintains a physical connection to the rest of the brain in order to receive input from it (sight, sound, etc.) and in order to control it (speech, movement, etc.) but the process of thinking is free from any causal connection to any non-conscious part of the brain.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 15:43:17 GMT -5
Lily:
Maybe, but my point is that whether the universe is inherently deterministic or random has no bearing on the issue of conscious free will.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone needs to believe in determinism or indeterminism. I think the issue is about people trying to better understand how the universe works.
As for whether we have conscious free will or not, besides the inherent desire to better understand the universe, it also might affect our criminal justice system. Those people who do not believe in conscious free will (i.e., believe that all of our thoughts and decisions are caused by forces outside of our conscious minds) might feel we should be rehabilitating criminals. People who believe in conscious free will might take the position that criminals freely chose to commit crimes and therefore should be punished for what they did. Rehabilitation would make little sense since those people knew what they were doing and freely chose their actions.
I presented a model that, hopefully, explains the nature of the conscious free will debate. I suspect that people on either side of the model will be unlikely to concede that the other side is even possible. But yes, one could maintain that sometimes our thoughts are ultimately caused by forces outside our conscious minds and at other times the ultimate cause is our consciousness.
But that's just my model and how it defines the problem. You are free to create your own model explaining the relationship between our physical brain and our conscious thoughts and decisions. And perhaps your model will better fit the observations and ideas you have about the nature of thought and conscious free will including the combination you suggested.
And again, at least personally, I do not feel the need to force either side of my model to be the one everyone accepts. I just want to better understand how the universe operates. I do have a strong opinion about which side of my model makes the most sense but I can be convinced that I'm wrong or that my model is inherently flawed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 15:47:10 GMT -5
Oh, so what you're saying, Dave, is...it's all academic! Sure, I can go for that.
By the way, what do either of you think about hypnosis and how apparently one can be persuaded to do things that are not conscious to the hypnotized individual.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 15:49:57 GMT -5
Oh, so what you're saying, Dave, is...it's all academic! Sure, I can go for that. There's certainly an "academic" side to it but there is the potential for the debate to affect how we treat people. In the US the criminal justice system sometimes treats the conscious mind as the sole causal agent and at other times not (crimes of passion, for example). It could be that this mixed model is the best one or it could be that it is an either/or situation in which case certain aspects of the criminal justice system would be based on a flawed model. I'm really not that familiar with the Truth of what goes on in hypnosis, but if the claim that a person's mind can be caused to have a thought/make a decision that the person would not have made otherwise while not under the influence of hypnosis then I would think this would be evidence that our conscious thoughts/decisions are ultimately caused by non-conscious forces. I read a book recently where one of the main characters, after being hypnotized, was walking along a stream with a friend. When that friend uttered the "trigger phrase" the character took off his clothes and jumped in the stream even though it was freezing cold outside. What made it interesting is that the character manufactured a reason why it was a good idea to jump in the water when clearly it wasn't. Again, I have no idea if this sort of thing is possible but it was an amusing and interesting part of the novel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 16:12:14 GMT -5
But, Dave, your first paragrah is the opposite of what you posted just previously to that. It seems that you believe (not just argue academically) enough in the philosopy of no free will to the extent to have it used in the real world, at least in the criminal justice system. That's kind of scary. But I have to now ask, what difference would you like to see happen to offenders if they (or anyone) are not responsible for their actions. Really, I am really interested in how you visualize society dealing with that differently from how it is now.
As far as hypnosis is concerned--and this pertains to how I said that we as concious beings do not have total free will--I can see how humans are in actuality hynotized by their cultures. And that's the cause of lot of the problems between countries and conflicts within societies.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 13, 2014 16:18:17 GMT -5
Bob Yeah, that's your claim. And if I understand it correctly then your position is that the conscious mind is a separate entity that while initially caused by outside forces (parents, DNA, birth, etc.) at some point it "severs" its causal ties with those outside forces and becomes the causal origin of its thoughts. It still maintains a physical connection to the rest of the brain in order to receive input from it (sight, sound, etc.) and in order to control it (speech, movement, etc.) but the process of thinking is free from any causal connection to any non-conscious part of the brain. No, not thinking. Deciding. What you seem to be claiming here is that decisions are not consciously made at all. Then what is consciousness for anyway? If what you say is true, then consciousness is useless. But then according to the Theory of Evolution, consciousness would never have evolved. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 13, 2014 16:22:43 GMT -5
Bob, I'm having a difficult understanding your question. I am not able to form any informed opinion about anything without first learning about that thing and developing the tools to think about it. As a child I would not have known enough about the free will debate to describe my thoughts about my thoughts as being free or not. So you never had any informed opinions when you were 5 years old?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 16:27:52 GMT -5
Example: A women walks into a store and wants some cosmetics, but it's way too expensive. Because no one is around and she thinks it's safe, she shoplifts the items.
After she gets home she starts feeling guity and returns to the store with the items.
So, if her decision to steal was something out of no free will, then what was the action to return the goods? And where does guilit feelings come from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 16:38:43 GMT -5
If every action of a person can be traced back to an initial cause(like the Big Bang) that results in a domino effect on that person and on every human being, then why are there individual differences within the human race? When and how did the original line of cause get skewed?
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 17:16:34 GMT -5
Bob:
Is making a decision not also thinking? If you decide things without thinking then ... well, I'm not even sure how to make sense of that.
Actually I'm not here, right now, claiming to support one side of the debate or the other. What I am trying to do is create a model that explains the debate. When people speak of "free will" I think they are usually talking about the kind of conscious free will relevant to moral culpability. As such I've tried to create a model that comprises both sides of the debate and draws a clear line between them. A line that can be discussed and investigated.
So before dealing with what consciousness is used for if not originating causal chains (and how it evolved and so on) the first step is to hammer out what the actual debate is. I've already proposed that the fundamental nature of the universe (vis a vis determinism or randomness) is irrelevant to the debate. In its place I've provided what I think is a model that captures both sides of the free will debate.
That's not what I said. I said that I was not then, nor am I able to now, have an informed opinion about something I know nothing about. Just like I couldn't explain Cagean experimental music when I was five (knowing absolutely nothing about it then), I would not have been able to state that I feel like I have free will since I did not know anything about the topic. I'm sure I had all sorts of informed opinions on things like the best football team ever and which cartoons were best, but that's not what we're discussing.
OK, so in terms of my proposed model then you are claiming that the causal chain that led to that decision originated/began in the conscious mind and not in some causal process that originated outside the conscious mind. Correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 17:28:02 GMT -5
That's the problem with philosoophical arguments--it's all abstractions.
Name one cause in a causal chain that results in one definite thought or action that had to happen in a definite, unchangeable way. There is no way you can do that.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 17:38:59 GMT -5
Lily:
I'm not sure what statement of mine you are referring to. I think it's possible to want to understand better how the universe operates and at the same realize that this understanding can affect our day-to-day lives. It's not an either/or situation and I certainly never meant to imply this was the case.
If it were to be proven without any doubt that our conscious thoughts and decisions are ultimately caused by forces outside of our conscious minds then I would like to think that our criminal justice system would become less about punishment and more about how to train criminal minds to no longer perform criminal activities. Doing this and not obliterating the original personality might be impossible. Not to mention all sorts of other ethical dilemmas concerning messing with someone's mind and sense of self.
Are you familiar with the story of Phineas Gage? During an accident a metal pipe went straight through his brain. He survived (somehow) but his behavior after the accident changed dramatically. In fact some of his behavior became criminal. Clearly a physical change to his brain altered how his actual thought processes. Imagine that there was this small little patch of neurons that were causing someone to steal and just by disconnecting some of those neurons the person would stop stealing. Yes, very science fiction but it would be nice if we could make very small changes that would eliminate criminal behavior.
But since all this technology is way beyond what we can do (though there has been some success with various programs like work-release and providing education and so on) what do we do now? Society does have the right to protect itself so if we cannot rehabilitate someone then we should remove them from society but at the same time minimize the punishment factor. In the US spending 1 year in jail is not just being removed from society for 1 year but also being subject to some pretty horrific conditions. If we determine that their conscious minds are not ultimately responsible for their actions then we are, in effect, punishing the wrong "person". So keep them from hurting others while not causing them to suffer for something they cannot control.
The human brain is a complex thing and is capable of holding contradictory notions at the same time. Sometimes I want to sleep at the very same time I want to eat. One side wins out and I do that thing. Maybe later the other side will win out.
In the grander scheme of things, explaining where guilt comes from takes us too deeply into the specifics of the evolution of the human mind and society and the influence societies have on individuals. But the general idea is the same, at any given point in time you want to do something and are doing it and later you do something that might contradict it. It's just a messy complicated brain at work.
For the same reason that the universe is not now entirely homogenous. Stars, galaxies, and planets formed because there were slight deviations in place from the beginning. Without these deviations the universe would just be a single mass of stuff with nothing differentiating one spot from another. But because these differences exist this means that the causal chains that lead to each of us must also be, at the very least, slightly different.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 17:47:12 GMT -5
Lily:
Of course we can't -- it's all way way too complicated. But it's also not even accurate. Under this way of thinking there would not be any one causal incident that was solely responsible for a particular thought but instead the some total of all the causal forces that create who you are at any one moment.
Years ago it was fashionable to say that a woman who had many sexual partners must have low self-esteem. Besides the fact that there was no evidence to support this claim (not to mention the sexist attitudes it contained within) the very concept of the claim is without merit. How in the world does it make sense to claim that just this one thing in particular is what causes all this other behavior? As in where did that low self-esteem come from in the first place? Problems with her father? But then where did his problems originate? Dropped on his head when he was a baby? But why was he dropped? The cat ran underneath his mother's foot? Why did the cat do that? Chasing a mouse? But why was the mouse there? And so on. (Obviously this is a bit of a whimsical example but hopefully it gets across the idea that it makes no sense to say that one reductive causal event can be said to be the cause of any one particular behavior.)
And so yes, philosophy does tend toward the abstract.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 17:51:55 GMT -5
But that's what you said. It all started with the Big Bang was one hypothesis you mentioned. Did the Big Bang resulit in one chain of causes or many chains?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 17:55:08 GMT -5
Also, if there is no free will--everything that happens is a result of a chain of causes--then one wouldn't need a mind. Just body mobility and a set of refexes. Does no free will also pertain to animals?
Edit: Meant to write "mind" not "brain."
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 13, 2014 19:24:29 GMT -5
I don't think we know enough to be certain about the ultimate beginning of the universe. For our purposes here I think it suffices to say that there isn't any one particular cause taken from anywhere in the "middle" of the causal chain to say that event is the cause of this particular action.
This assumes that the only function a mind could have is to be the causal origin of our thoughts and decisions. It could serve other uses. Anyway, that is also one of Bob's arguments and before we go down the road of debating the sides of the issues I think it's best that we all agree on what exactly we are arguing. If the model I proposed does not sufficiently represent both sides of the argument then we need to come up with a model, a definition, which both sides agree to and then go from there. If we do all like that model then we can take the next steps.
As for animals, given the similarities with humans then I would think we could look at them as well. Is it possible for a human brain that is very similar to a non-human brain (especially primates and mammals) to be able to create a consciousness capable of originating causal chains where a non-human brain would not be able to? I don't know, but it is interesting and the nature of non-human consciousness might be helpful to the overall debate.
|
|