Page 1 of 9

Free will is real

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:24 pm
by bahman
We are all sure about the fact that thought precedes act and the fact that they are different. There is therefore a point in which there is neither thought nor act. Lets call this point the decision point. This point cannot be affected by thought because otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore decision is free.

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:27 pm
by Impenitent
reflexively free is not cognitively free

-Imp

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:32 pm
by bahman
Impenitent wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:27 pm
reflexively free is not cognitively free

-Imp
What is reflexively free?

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:33 pm
by Science Fan
There are a number of instances where neuroscience has shown behavior occurs without any thought. Like a person who hit their thumb with a hammer, they will move their hand away after the hit. When asked why they did this, they will say because it hurt. Yet, the thumb is actually moved away before any pain occurs. Or, touch your finger to your nose and see if you think the feeling of contact occurred simultaneously, as opposed to the feeling that the finger was touched occurred after the nose was touched, because the nerve route was longer for the finger?

While science has yet to show that free-will does or does not exist, despite the new-atheist community fixated on the claim that science has ruled out free-will, it is an open question. In fact, the vast majority of neuroscientists don't even want to spend time addressing it because they are too busy struggling with how the brain actually works. But, even though free-will remains as an open question, we still know that numerous human actions occur without any thought directing them. Like reflexes, as another common example.

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:07 pm
by bahman
Science Fan wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:33 pm
There are a number of instances where neuroscience has shown behavior occurs without any thought. Like a person who hit their thumb with a hammer, they will move their hand away after the hit. When asked why they did this, they will say because it hurt. Yet, the thumb is actually moved away before any pain occurs. Or, touch your finger to your nose and see if you think the feeling of contact occurred simultaneously, as opposed to the feeling that the finger was touched occurred after the nose was touched, because the nerve route was longer for the finger?

While science has yet to show that free-will does or does not exist, despite the new-atheist community fixated on the claim that science has ruled out free-will, it is an open question. In fact, the vast majority of neuroscientists don't even want to spend time addressing it because they are too busy struggling with how the brain actually works. But, even though free-will remains as an open question, we still know that numerous human actions occur without any thought directing them. Like reflexes, as another common example.
What do you think of my argument?

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:13 am
by gaffo
freewill is overated (the whole philosophical debate bores me).

man - who is an animal - has no more freewill than the rest of his "family".

he just has a bigger brain - that brain is still a product of evolution and so he has no freewill, and is constrained by all the born instincts the rest of his family has.

"reason" you say!!!!!!!!

ya, what about it? maybe it is overrated and just another instinct.

I find the whole "we have freewill" proclaimation as Hubris myself

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:31 am
by bahman
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:13 am
freewill is overated (the whole philosophical debate bores me).

man - who is an animal - has no more freewill than the rest of his "family".

he just has a bigger brain - that brain is still a product of evolution and so he has no freewill, and is constrained by all the born instincts the rest of his family has.

"reason" you say!!!!!!!!

ya, what about it? maybe it is overrated and just another instinct.

I find the whole "we have freewill" proclaimation as Hubris myself
What do you think of my argument?

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:23 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
It does seem to be a rather silly thing to agonise over. What difference does it make?

"What difference does it make?"

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:07 pm
by henry quirk
As a real, flesh and bone, free will, I think it makes a whole whack of difference.

If I'm bio-automata (more specifically, if I can be convinced I'm nuthin' but bio-automata) then any objections I have to being used as resource or instrument are baseless.

If, however, I'm a free will (an agent in the world; self-owned, self-directing [autonomous]) then my objections to being used, directed, devalued have foundation.

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:37 pm
by Science Fan
Since your argument is based on at least one false premise, your argument cannot justify your conclusion. Your conclusion may be right, but your argument cannot justify it when based on at least one false premise.

Re: "What difference does it make?"

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:41 pm
by Atla
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:07 pm
If I'm bio-automata (more specifically, if I can be convinced I'm nuthin' but bio-automata) then any objections I have to being used as resource or instrument are baseless.
Ehh, why? Nothing changes, you can still have your objections all the same. That too is predetermined.

"one false premise"

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:49 pm
by henry quirk
Which is?

Re: Free will is real

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:53 pm
by Science Fan
Henry: I already explained the false premises above. I'm not going to repeat myself to benefit someone who hasn't read the thread.

"predetermined"

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:55 pm
by henry quirk
Yeah, that's the thing: I'm not; you're not; and the folks who work so hard to convince others that they are, aren't either (and they damn well know it). But: convince a man that's he's just a bit of programmed organic matter and you can use him as you like.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:03 pm
by henry quirk
Sci,

I read the thread.

Was this...

Since your argument is based on at least one false premise, your argument cannot justify your conclusion. Your conclusion may be right, but your argument cannot justify it when based on at least one false premise.

...directed at me?

If so: I'm not seein' how this...

There are a number of instances where neuroscience has shown behavior occurs without any thought. Like a person who hit their thumb with a hammer, they will move their hand away after the hit. When asked why they did this, they will say because it hurt. Yet, the thumb is actually moved away before any pain occurs. Or, touch your finger to your nose and see if you think the feeling of contact occurred simultaneously, as opposed to the feeling that the finger was touched occurred after the nose was touched, because the nerve route was longer for the finger?

While science has yet to show that free-will does or does not exist, despite the new-atheist community fixated on the claim that science has ruled out free-will, it is an open question. In fact, the vast majority of neuroscientists don't even want to spend time addressing it because they are too busy struggling with how the brain actually works. But, even though free-will remains as an open question, we still know that numerous human actions occur without any thought directing them. Like reflexes, as another common example.


...has any bearing on this...

As a real, flesh and bone, free will, I think it makes a whole whack of difference.

If I'm bio-automata (more specifically, if I can be convinced I'm nuthin' but bio-automata) then any objections I have to being used as resource or instrument are baseless.

If, however, I'm a free will (an agent in the world; self-owned, self-directing [autonomous]) then my objections to being used, directed, devalued have foundation.


And, if not: then fuggedaboutit.