Demonstration of free will.

[Willamena]

Our conscious thinking always seems a step behind.

Surely, then, that step behind is the now we are conscious of.

Can't even talk about now, because as soon as you start the moment you talk about has already passed.

That's the point, though: active agency occurs in the moment. It is self-determination, the choice rendered at that moment when it lends "self" the significance of agency. As More in Common implied, the agent isn't exempt of its perspective.

 

[Nakosis]

That's the point, though: active agency occurs in the moment. It is self-determination, the choice rendered at that moment when it lends "self" the significance of agency. As More in Common implied, the agent isn't exempt of its perspective.

But then isn't this something we are not conscious of. The "free agent" could be an automatic response mechanism for all we know. This assumes the existence of something we could not possibly be aware of doesn't it?

 

[Willamena]

But then isn't this something we are not conscious of. The "free agent" could be an automatic response mechanism for all we know. This assumes the existence of something we could not possibly be aware of doesn't it?

We're not conscious of where it originates: that is what makes the action "uncaused," as they say. We are just conscious of "having done stuff," which we then, with a single thought, take possession of (agency).

The "for all we know" is the objective, omniscient perspective that More in Common mentioned. Objectively we can say blah-blah is the cause, but when we employ the objective perspective, the perspective of the agent, and along with it LFW, is eliminated from that picture.

 

[Nakosis]

We're not conscious of where it originates: that is what makes the action "uncaused," as they say. We are just conscious of "having done stuff," which we then, with a single thought, take possession of (agency).

The "for all we know" is the objective, omniscient perspective that More in Common mentioned. Objectively we can say blah-blah is the cause, but when we employ the objective perspective, the perspective of the agent, and along with it LFW, is eliminated from that picture.

Assuming it exists in the first place.

I don't know that it is necessary, this freewill agent. Kind of like we can explain the existence of things without God. So why put God into the equation?

Compatibilism seems to explain things well enough. Why add this free agent?

 

[9Westy9]

Whether you were brought into this thread by a chain of events outside your control, by your own will or maybe you just randomly fell in. It does not matter because now you are here and now the choice is yours to make. You can either reply to this thread or not reply to the thread. You are free to choose either, the choice is yours and yours alone. Whatever may compel you it does not force you. So exercise that freedom of choice you have.

I didn't choose to respond but rather felt I had to

 

[Willamena]

Assuming it exists in the first place.

That's just it: it has to. The subjective perspective on the world that the individual employs exists; the unconscious source of actions from that perspective, where consciousness's moment is acknowledged to lag behind a real-world moment, exists; and the single thought that takes possession of an action and calls it "mine" exists.

I don't know that it is necessary, this freewill agent. Kind of like we can explain the existence of things without God. So why put God into the equation?

"Free will" in argumentation stands in contrast to God and its "predestination." Philosophically, we do explain it sans God.

Free will is the activity of the (grammatically) supernatural agent "me." It's a result of that thought of possession. We "own" a lot of things that aren't really ours, including a self. Without that, there is no one to hold responsible for things done "right" or "wrong," there is no one feel guilty when others are hurt, or take joy in beauty and form. Its necessity lies in that it is the foundation of the grammatical structures that are our languages, the identity structures that give us sciences and metaphysics, and the social structures that are our civilization, not the least of which is the Court of Law.

I kinda want to keep those.

Compatibilism seems to explain things well enough. Why add this free agent?

The free will agent needn't be of God, we agree there.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't choose to respond but rather felt I had to

Darned compulsions.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

That's not very persuasive. In some cases our actions are done without thinking. Like playing a guitar. Your hands learn the proper position without consciously thinking. Obviously one can act/react before conscious thought. However there is no reason to think this occurs before every decision made. We obviously make conscious decision. We do, on occasion think before acting. Doesn't mean we could have made a different decision then we did. Only that conscious thought occurred prior to the action.

Of course it's persuasive. If our minds make decisions before we're even aware of them, then it's not free will; it's like there's some other agent acting on our behalf.

But then maybe this brings into the question the nature of the self? Am I my egoic consciousness?

My own belief is that free will is not free, it's conditional. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything depends on causes and conditions; and that will include the will. Therefore 'free will' is an incorrect term, 'conditional will' is probably better.

Take a look at the Warrior Gene. In the US a man had a sentence reduced from capital punishment to life imprisonment because it was proven he had something called the 'Warrior Gene' which made him more likely to kill/murder. This has been tested in a court of law, and it was found that due to his genetics, he wasn't wholly responsible for the two murders he carried out.

Robert Jones » FORENSICS 148; NEUROSCIENCE GAINS A LEGAL FOOTHOLD

I think this is fairly persuasive evidence that free will does not exist; conditional will does.

 

[Nakosis]

That's just it: it has to. The subjective perspective on the world that the individual employs exists; the unconscious source of actions from that perspective, where consciousness's moment is acknowledged to lag behind a real-world moment, exists; and the single thought that takes possession of an action and calls it "mine" exists.

We create an imaginary reality and I suspect this is were the self and mine exist. The brain imagines the existence of the self by seeing(imagining) the perspective of the self at that moment. You see yourself, identify with that image. Accept this imagined persona as you. I think it is just a neat trick the brain has become capable of in the last 50K years. I doubt the self exists at the moment between the past an the future. The self only exists as a memory of the past.

"Free will" in argumentation stands in contrast to God and its "predestination." Philosophically, we do explain it sans God.

That's fine, no need to bring God in then.

Free will is the activity of the (grammatically) supernatural agent "me." It's a result of that thought of possession. We "own" a lot of things that aren't really ours, including a self. Without that, there is no one to hold responsible for things done "right" or "wrong," there is no one feel guilty when others are hurt, or take joy in beauty and form. Its necessity lies in that it is the foundation of the grammatical structures that are our languages, the identity structures that give us sciences and metaphysics, and the social structures that are our civilization, not the least of which is the Court of Law.

I kinda want to keep those.


The free will agent needn't be of God, we agree there.

Your supernatural agent is my imagine self that I imagined existing through all my past experiences.

I'm not happy with it. I like myself. I'm not happy existing as an imagined person. However it seems to explain things without the need to introduce a supernatural agent.

About 50 thousand years ago the mind became capable of dualism. Creating an imagined reality and accepting it's existence as real. Go watch a sad movie. It actually affects how you feel even though you know none of it was real. The same thing goes on in one's head. The self we imagine to exist actually is part of what affects our actions. Which gives more credibility to it's existence. However it doesn't necessarily have to be real.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course it's persuasive. If our minds make decisions before we're even aware of them, then it's not free will; it's like there's some other agent acting on our behalf.

But then maybe this brings into the question the nature of the self? Am I my egoic consciousness?

My own belief is that free will is not free, it's conditional. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything depends on causes and conditions; and that will include the will. Therefore 'free will' is an incorrect term, 'conditional will' is probably better.

Take a look at the Warrior Gene. In the US a man had a sentence reduced from capital punishment to life imprisonment because it was proven he had something called the 'Warrior Gene' which made him more likely to kill/murder. This has been tested in a court of law, and it was found that due to his genetics, he wasn't wholly responsible for the two murders he carried out.

Robert Jones » FORENSICS 148; NEUROSCIENCE GAINS A LEGAL FOOTHOLD

I think this is fairly persuasive evidence that free will does not exist; conditional will does.

What do you mean by conditional? How is that different from compatibilist freewill?

 

[Friend of Bill W]

What do you mean by conditional? How is that different from compatibilist freewill?

It could mean exactly the same thing; I don't know what 'compatibilist' means with reference to this subject.

I've given my take on a Buddhist point of view in that nothing exists in a vacuum and everything depends on causes and conditions (dependant arising); therefore free will cannot exist as a single entity and must rely on other things; therefore it cannot be 'free'; it must be conditional.

My experience as an alcoholic also seems to agree with that. I wanted to stop drinking, yet I found I could not permanently stop, no matter how hard I tried to use my will. It did not seem like I had 'free will' at the time, because I invariably would drink.

Eventually I ended up in A.A. and they showed me how to create the causes and conditions so that I could stop drinking.

So yes, I had some degree of control over my will, but it wasn't totally free; it depended on causes and conditions.

Hope that helps! Maybe I shouldn't have butted in?

 

[Nakosis]

It could mean exactly the same thing; I don't know what 'compatibilist' means with reference to this subject.

I've given my take on a Buddhist point of view in that nothing exists in a vacuum and everything depends on causes and conditions (dependant arising); therefore free will cannot exist as a single entity and must rely on other things; therefore it cannot be 'free'; it must be conditional.

My experience as an alcoholic also seems to agree with that. I wanted to stop drinking, yet I found I could not permanently stop, no matter how hard I tried to use my will. It did not seem like I had 'free will' at the time, because I invariably would drink.

Eventually I ended up in A.A. and they showed me how to create the causes and conditions so that I could stop drinking.

So yes, I had some degree of control over my will, but it wasn't totally free; it depended on causes and conditions.

Hope that helps! Maybe I shouldn't have butted in?

Sorry, think I got confused between the two threads on freewill. The other thread is looking specifically at LFW.

If we are all compatibilists then hey great.:rainbow1:

 

[Tiberius]

Predestination is usually a religious concept. I think philosophy/science prefers determinism.

Same thing to me. Both mean that I don't have conscious control over my actions.

Determinism says that everything that happen to you prior to posting caused you to post. While you went through the process (mentally) of making a decision whether to post and what to post. Your desires caused you to post and you are reacting to what was posted prior.

How does this work?

You see, if the sum experiences of my life up until the point I make the decision are responsible for the decision I make, how can this work unless I have life experiences? This couldn't have applied when I was a baby, could it?

However you did what you did, wrote what you wrote. Could you have done anything other then what you did? That's libertarian free will. Could you have actually chosen a different future then the one that actually occurred?

Philosophical mumbo jumbo. You could say that no matter what I do.

 

[Skwim]

Same thing to me. Both mean that I don't have conscious control over my actions.

It means you don't have any true "choice," free or otherwise, over any action.

How does this work?

Cause and effect. Everything that happens has a cause(s). You do what you do because you can't do any differently.

 

[Tiberius]

Skwim, that does not address the issue I raised.

 

[Willamena]

We create an imaginary reality and I suspect this is were the self and mine exist. The brain imagines the existence of the self by seeing(imagining) the perspective of the self at that moment. You see yourself, identify with that image. Accept this imagined persona as you. I think it is just a neat trick the brain has become capable of in the last 50K years. I doubt the self exists at the moment between the past an the future. The self only exists as a memory of the past.

"Imaginary" is not the word I would use, rather "imaged." Imaginary has a connotation of being unreal. Even memories exist.

Your supernatural agent is my imagine self that I imagined existing through all my past experiences.

Imaged.

I'm not happy with it. I like myself. I'm not happy existing as an imagined person. However it seems to explain things without the need to introduce a supernatural agent.

About 50 thousand years ago the mind became capable of dualism. Creating an imagined reality and accepting it's existence as real. Go watch a sad movie. It actually affects how you feel even though you know none of it was real. The same thing goes on in one's head. The self we imagine to exist actually is part of what affects our actions. Which gives more credibility to it's existence. However it doesn't necessarily have to be real.

Then don't be imagined. Empower yourself: be imaged!

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Then don't be imagined. Empower yourself: be imaged!

There is many schools of thought that say that you Empower 'yourself' by realising we're 'imagined'; no more than a mere thought process.

It's a bit like when we're dreaming, and we think the dream is real, and we'll be frightened within the dream if we're chased by a monster. But imagine what you could do if you realised within the dream that it was actually a dream? You'd smile, and you'd know this monster wasn't real. You'd be empowered in your dream because you knew it wasn't reality.

And then we wake up, and think it's all real!

Mind you, I feel pretty real, which is disempowering sometimes.