A challenge to show me wrong

[Koldo]

I don't necessarily disagree. But your prefereces are what you are, after all, so you're not being constrained by other wills. This is what being free is, isn't it? It would be physically impossible not to have our preferences influenced by others, but I think that it's important to pick a little something from everyone. The more you know, the freer you can be, because the wider the possible options are.

Ah, so you are a compatibilist.
You could have said so from the start.

 

[RubyEyes]

Ah, so you are a compatibilist.
You could have said so from the start.

I don't know what I am, since I generally don't label myself.
What do compatibilists say?

 

[Koldo]

I don't know what I am, since I generally don't label myself.
What do compatibilists say?

A combination of free will and determinism.
Compatibilists usually see free will on terms of liberty, such as not being coerced, rather than the more common: "you could have done otherwise".

 

[RubyEyes]

A combination of free will and determinism.
Compatibilists usually see free will on terms of liberty, such as not being coerced, rather than the more common: "you could have done otherwise".

If I pick A because I like A's, arguing that just because I wouldn't have picked B I'm not free seems absurd. It would not be me if I hadn't my own personality, with my likes and dislikes. However, I don't think the soul is deterministic. So I can't affirm that 'I couldn't have done otherwise'.

 

[Koldo]

If I pick A because I like A's, arguing that just because I wouldn't have picked B I'm not free seems absurd. It would not be me if I hadn't my own personality, with my likes and dislikes.

But that is how free will is usually understood.
As the ability to make conscious choices without the use of any factor that may "limit" ourselves such as our personality, preferences, and so on.
It is the ability to do otherwise.

However, I don't think the soul is deterministic. So I can't affirm that 'I couldn't have done otherwise'.

How does the soul make choices?
Haven't you said that your choices are made in accordance to your preferences?

 

[Willamena]

It would not be me if I hadn't my own personality, with my likes and dislikes. However, I don't think the soul is deterministic. So I can't affirm that 'I couldn't have done otherwise'.

That's free will. *nods*

 

[RubyEyes]

But that is how free will is usually understood.
As the ability to make conscious choices without the use of any factor that may "limit" ourselves such as our personality, preferences, and so on.
It is the ability to do otherwise.

If preferences are defined as the standard which you use to make choices, then how can it 'limit' the making of choices?

How does the soul make choices?
Haven't you said that your choices are made in accordance to your preferences?

Yes, they are the standard, and the soul is what uses that standard. The soul, your essence, your 'self', is what defines the choice from all the possible choices that there could be. It, which is you, controls your actions: you control your actions (this is a reference to the game analogy).

That's free will. *nods*

Sure

 

[atanu]

If preferences are defined as the standard which you use to make choices, then how can it 'limit' the making of choices?

There are sub-conscious tendencies that are not known.

Yes, they are the standard, and the soul is what uses that standard. The soul, your essence, your 'self', is what defines the choice from all the possible choices that there could be. It, which is you, controls your actions: you control your actions (this is a reference to the game analogy).

It means that one must know the soul in its completeness before one can be said to be controlling actions.

 

[Koldo]

If preferences are defined as the standard which you use to make choices, then how can it 'limit' the making of choices?

That is also something i would like to know myself.
Perhaps someone willing to defend the concept 'free will' may give this answer.
It doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, they are the standard, and the soul is what uses that standard. The soul, your essence, your 'self', is what defines the choice from all the possible choices that there could be. It, which is you, controls your actions: you control your actions (this is a reference to the game analogy).

Good, and how isn't this soul deterministic if it uses certain standards ( which it didn't choose to have ) to make the choices? Where exactly does something non-deterministic fits in the scheme, and how?

 

[RubyEyes]

There are sub-conscious tendencies that are not known.

Ok, but I was talking about how conscious preferences affect choices.

It means that one must know the soul in its completeness before one can be said to be controlling actions.

It's one of the most basic things in our lives, our experience of self. It's intuitive that we think and control our body from our mind.

That is also something i would like to know myself.
Perhaps someone willing to defend the concept 'free will' may give this answer.
It doesn't make sense to me.

That it doesn't make sense is a defense of free will. You can't limit yourself, so you can be said to be free. Why not? And what other could it be?

Good, and how isn't this soul deterministic if it uses certain standards ( which it didn't choose to have ) to make the choices? Where exactly does something non-deterministic fits in the scheme, and how?

Soul is part of the non-physical reality, it is incorporeal, and where human nature lies, from God's initial creativity. You seem to think that determinism is the default thing 'in the scheme', but let me ask you one question:

Does a single method to falsify determism occur to you?

There's simply no way. Determinism is a dead-end, and it has no way to demonstrate anything either: whatever the soul does, was set to be that way. So I prefer to be guided by my own experience. I observe the physical world, but there is some 'self' in there which seems to be different from any other thing like a rock or the wall. Nothing suggests that the soul works like a machine. There's a different 'flavor' to it. If you don't believe in the soul, think of consciousness and the mind. It can start its own causal lines, as an agent.

 

[Koldo]

That it doesn't make sense is a defense of free will. You can't limit yourself, so you can be said to be free. Why not? And what other could it be?

I am sorry, but i don't understand a thing of what was written here. :cover:

Soul is part of the non-physical reality, it is incorporeal, and where human nature lies, from God's initial creativity. You seem to think that determinism is the default thing 'in the scheme', but let me ask you one question:

Does a single method to falsify determism occur to you?

Yes. If events were shown to occur independent of any cause then determinism would be false. I don't know much about this subject but i guess this has been shown to happen in the microscropic scale. However, it has nothing to do with free will.

There's simply no way. Determinism is a dead-end, and it has no way to demonstrate anything either: whatever the soul does, was set to be that way.

As i said above, determinism is not a dead-end. It could be falsified.

So I prefer to be guided by my own experience. I observe the physical world, but there is some 'self' in there which seems to be different from any other thing like a rock or the wall. Nothing suggests that the soul works like a machine. There's a different 'flavor' to it. If you don't believe in the soul, think of consciousness and the mind. It can start its own causal lines, as an agent.

You have said that you act in accordance to your preferences.
Are you saying now that you create your own preferences?

 

[RubyEyes]

I am sorry, but i don't understand a thing of what was written here. :cover:

Let's see. You said that we're limited by our preferences. If our preferences are what define us, then that doesn't make any sense, because it would be like saying: 'you're not free, because you're restricted by yourself.' It doesn't make any sense because restrictions are significant only when others limit your freedom. Have you ever wondered why no language has first person imperatives in the natural usage?

Yes. If events were shown to occur independent of any cause then determinism would be false. I don't know much about this subject but i guess this has been shown to happen in the microscropic scale. However, it has nothing to do with free will.

When I choose A instead of B, can you show that this particular action is not influenced by something other than the material? I've also heard some neurologists defend the indetermination of the brain. Also, even if it's determined, some causes may have different possible effects. The one which happens, is that chance, or is that something else's work?

As i said above, determinism is not a dead-end. It could be falsified.

And you said it has already been falsified. But on the macroscopic scale, any event which takes place, can already be said to come from previous causes, including for example that a girl falls in love with one boy and not another.

If determinism says it can explain any brain activity on the grounds of previous causes, I'll patiently sit down until they do so. We still know very little about this, so I can't grant that everything has a determining cause.

You have said that you act in accordance to your preferences.
Are you saying now that you create your own preferences?

You are who ultimately decide their final form, yes. There are millions of musical styles you could like, yet you only like a few, and you have been exposed to many of them.

 

[atanu]

Ok, but I was talking about how conscious preferences affect choices.

That's incomplete. Isn't it. Our instincts, values, deep rooted desires are not known.

It's one of the most basic things in our lives, our experience of self. It's intuitive that we think and control our body from our mind.

Mind and Self are different. Mind is that where only certain conscious information manifest. But Self is not merely the part that is available to conscious mind.

 

[RubyEyes]

That's incomplete. Isn't it. Our instincts, values, deep rooted desires are not known.

I don't know. I think if you reflect deeply and analyse yourself you will reach your true desires and you'll get a chance to fulfill them. Your approach seems 100% Freudian. I'm not saying they're wholly wrong, but I think he exaggerated, and psychoanalysis is today pseudoscience.

However, I completely agree the mind is still very unknown and mysterious to science, we're only beginning to unlock its secrets.

Mind and Self are different. Mind is that where only certain conscious information manifest. But Self is not merely the part that is available to conscious mind.

Yes, they are not the same, because the 'self' is a subjective experience of the mind. The unconscious mind would correspond to parts of the self we are not directly aware of, but nonetheless, they are still part of it.

 

[Koldo]

Let's see. You said that we're limited by our preferences. If our preferences are what define us, then that doesn't make any sense, because it would be like saying: 'you're not free, because you're restricted by yourself.' It doesn't make any sense because restrictions are significant only when others limit your freedom. Have you ever wondered why no language has first person imperatives in the natural usage?

That is how free will is usually understood.
You are right when you say that it doesn't make sense.

When I choose A instead of B, can you show that this particular action is not influenced by something other than the material?

Not, as we don't have enough knowledge to determine all the converging causes of the choices we make yet. But we can determine there is a cause for the choices we make, because if it were otherwise our choices would be completely random.

I've also heard some neurologists defend the indetermination of the brain. Also, even if it's determined, some causes may have different possible effects. The one which happens, is that chance, or is that something else's work?

It is chance.

And you said it has already been falsified. But on the macroscopic scale, any event which takes place, can already be said to come from previous causes, including for example that a girl falls in love with one boy and not another.

If determinism says it can explain any brain activity on the grounds of previous causes, I'll patiently sit down until they do so. We still know very little about this, so I can't grant that everything has a determining cause.

Can you come up with anything other determinism or indeterminism to explain it?
If it is determinism, there is no free will ( as usually understood ).
If it is indeterminism, there is no free will ( as usually understood ).

You are who ultimately decide their final form, yes. There are millions of musical styles you could like, yet you only like a few, and you have been exposed to many of them.

How do you choose?
By what means?

 

[RubyEyes]

That is how free will is usually understood.
You are right when you say that it doesn't make sense.

I'm saying that what doesn't make any sense is saying that you can constrain yourself. You are free when no other wills influence your own.

Not, as we don't have enough knowledge to determine all the converging causes of the choices we make yet. But we can determine there is a cause for the choices we make, because if it were otherwise our choices would be completely random.

There's the third option, which is that you start your own causal chains. You choose to start one and not another. This is agency, and needs a mind.

It is chance.

I don't think anybody can claim to possess the absolute truth in this regard. If you do, then you're making determinism the dead-end I talked about, because every possible event will be said to fit the framework.

Can you come up with anything other determinism or indeterminism to explain it?
If it is determinism, there is no free will ( as usually understood ).
If it is indeterminism, there is no free will ( as usually understood ).

Agency.

How do you choose?
By what means?

You have a set of possible options, and you pick the one that you prefer. The means are what we call the will. If your mother asks you whether you want chicken or pork for dinner, you will choose according to your preferences by your will. This will may not be determined by prior events (because it can be non-physical), but start itself its own line and have effects.

 

[Koldo]

I'm saying that what doesn't make any sense is saying that you can constrain yourself. You are free when no other wills influence your own.

That is not how most people understand free will.
I am not here to defend such or such definitions of free will so this particular subject has little importance to me.

There's the third option, which is that you start your own causal chains. You choose to start one and not another. This is agency, and needs a mind.

How can i choose something if not using my preferences to decide?
There has to be 1 single choice that is prefered in every single moment.

Imagine you have three possible options: A, B and C.
You prefer B and C over A.
How do you decide which one to pick now?
I would say you will have a preference for B over C, or C over B at this moment which will then allow you to choose.
How do you solve this problem if not this way?

I don't think anybody can claim to possess the absolute truth in this regard. If you do, then you're making determinism the dead-end I talked about, because every possible event will be said to fit the framework.

I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

Agency.

You have a set of possible options, and you pick the one that you prefer. The means are what we call the will. If your mother asks you whether you want chicken or pork for dinner, you will choose according to your preferences by your will. This will may not be determined by prior events (because it can be non-physical), but start itself its own line and have effects.

I will choose according to my will. That is correct.
You still have to explain how something non-physical instantly grants itself the possibility of being not determined by past events nor indetermined.
It seems logically incoherent to me.

 

[atanu]

I don't know. I think if you reflect deeply and analyse yourself you will reach your true desires and you'll get a chance to fulfill them. Your approach seems 100% Freudian. I'm not saying they're wholly wrong, but I think he exaggerated, and psychoanalysis is today pseudoscience.

However, I completely agree the mind is still very unknown and mysterious to science, we're only beginning to unlock its secrets.

Even if I am 1% correct there remains the effect of the subconscious to be known to be able to say 'there is free choice'.

 

[idav]

Not, as we don't have enough knowledge to determine all the converging causes of the choices we make yet. But we can determine there is a cause for the choices we make, because if it were otherwise our choices would be completely random.

Of course everything is caused but I have just wanted to add something so I snipped this part. The question for me is whether or not we can choose against the greatest of causation. To clarify say if I'm 40% caused to choose 'A' and 60% caused to choose 'B' I think it is possible to choose A over B regardless of both being determined. I also know that in our minds sometimes we don't know what to choose though there is actually a mechanism in our brain to keep us from being indecisive but there is a real possibility that we can be completely indecisive and even act against the things that influence us in our environment. I do notice that the hardest decisions to change ourselves get easier over time because the causation gains more of an influence as we act on our free will. The thing that I find truly unique in our complex brains is we have so many things fighting eachother yet the fight isn't fair in that the strongest will survive. Parts of our brain are in competition and we can focus it at will.

http://www3.fitnyc.edu/eap/How the Brain Works.pdf

 

[atanu]

Of course everything is caused but I have just wanted to add something so I snipped this part. The question for me is whether or not we can choose against the greatest of causation. To clarify say if I'm 40% caused to choose 'A' and 60% caused to choose 'B' I think it is possible to choose A over B regardless of both being determined. I also know that in our minds sometimes we don't know ----

Our minds are the primary caused objects that cause other objects to take birth. So, assuming that the mind has freedom is an illusion. If you trace the chain of 'because', only the uncaused has the freedom.