Do You Believe in Free Will?

[sandandfoam]

Just as Descartes did. Reduced to its essence, thought cannot exist without a mind to conceive it. That mind is "you". Or "I", as posed by Bouncing Ball.

I believe I exist, and I believe what I am includes my mind. But isn't Descartes making a leap? Can't the method of doubt be extended to "I"? The method of doubt leads me to doubt everything except that there are thoughts, I don't see any reason not to doubt that those thoughts in my mind are mine.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I believe I exist, and I believe what I am includes my mind. But isn't Descartes making a leap? Can't the method of doubt be extended to "I"? The method of doubt leads me to doubt everything except that there are thoughts, I don't see any reason not to doubt that those thoughts in my mind are mine.

For Descartes, the reduction could not pass beyond the idea that "he" had to exist, in order for his thoughts to exist.

I have no desire to debate whether he stopped too soon with his search, I am simply helping you understand how he reached his famous conclusion.

I think the Wikipedia entry does an extremely good job of discussing it, and in great detail.
Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kungfuzed]

Free will is an illusion. Our choices are no more free than the falling rain or the rumbling dice. Our thoughts and choices are just as determined in our brain as the path of a lightning bolt.

 

[Magic Man]

I believe I exist, and I believe what I am includes my mind. But isn't Descartes making a leap? Can't the method of doubt be extended to "I"? The method of doubt leads me to doubt everything except that there are thoughts, I don't see any reason not to doubt that those thoughts in my mind are mine.

Yes, but those thoughts have to be produced by something, they have to exist as part of something. His doubt exists, therefore he exists. The doubt is not just something out there, it's confined to his self.

 

[sandandfoam]

His doubt exists, therefore he exists.

My point is that by his method, i.e doubt, that can be doubted.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Free will is an illusion. Our choices are no more free than the falling rain or the rumbling dice. Our thoughts and choices are just as determined in our brain as the path of a lightning bolt.

You are absolutely killing me. I am laughing as hard as I have laughed in a LONG time.

"Tall White Filipino" indeed.

I'm going to have to petition the powers that be to lift the frubal limit on this post.

 

[Halcyon]

I believe in free will to a degree, I can choose to go left or right at the end of my road, but I can't choose to go up, down or back in time because the choices aren't avaliable (assuming I don't walk around carrying a shovel, jetpack and time machine).

I also don't accept that all our thought are pre-programmed into us just because we're biochemical machines. The pathways are already set up to respond to stimuli sure, but we can still consciously ignore or favour certain pathways.

 

[Magic Man]

My point is that by his method, i.e doubt, that can be doubted.

Right, but doubt exists no matter what. If you doubt doubt, some doubt still exists. His doubting his own doubt would lead him to the same conclusion as his doubting anything else.

 

[sandandfoam]

I believe in free will to a degree, I can choose to go left or right at the end of my road, but I can't choose to go up, down or back in time because the choices aren't avaliable (assuming I don't walk around carrying a shovel, jetpack and time machine).

I also don't accept that all our thought are pre-programmed into us just because we're biochemical machines. The pathways are already set up to respond to stimuli sure, but we can still consciously ignore or favour certain pathways.

The evidence, beginning with the work of Benjamin Libet at the University of California is against free will as we normally understand it.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-free-will-neuroscience-process-theology.html

 

[sandandfoam]

Right, but doubt exists no matter what. If you doubt doubt, some doubt still exists. His doubting his own doubt would lead him to the same conclusion as his doubting anything else.

I don't see it, thought exists no matter what, doubt as a thought exists, it requires a leap to say that the thought or the doubt infers an "I".

 

[Magic Man]

I don't see it, thought exists no matter what, doubt as a thought exists, it requires a leap to say that the thought or the doubt infers an "I".

Why? How does doubt exist without an agent?

 

[sandandfoam]

Why? How does doubt exist without an agent?

Kant and his contemporary Lichtenberg were both dissatisfied with Descartes argument. Lichtenberg pointed out that Descartes (edit) should not have drawn this conclusion, the idea that the cogito shows that there is a thought but not an 'I' that thinks it is Lichtenbergs.
Kant felt that Descartes wrongly described the certainty of self knowledge, I cannot extend my sceptisism into the subjective sphere, so I can be sure of my present mental states, but I cannot be sure of what I am or of whether or not there is an 'I' to whom these states belong.
Kant argued that doubt shows there is a point of view and that the transcendental unity of apperception provides the minimal description of our point of view, I can know one thing - that there is a unity of consciousness. The transcendental deduction shows that the truth of transcedence is presupposed in the existence of experience.
So thought presupposes transcendental unity, not that I am.
I think .
Edit:- I should add that as with everything Kantian I'm not sure I understand what he was trying to say - but this is what I took from it.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Free will comes from the idea that we have a non-physical soul that is free from cause and effect. It has the independence to make a choice without that choice being caused by anything in the physical world.

If the mind = the brain then all our thoughts, feelings, and choices are determined by nature (the interaction of our neurons, chemicals, and enviornment).

Of course, I've also made the argument in the past that if God is truly omniscient then He knows exactly what we will do, and if the future can be known then what choice do we have?

 

[Halcyon]

The evidence, beginning with the work of Benjamin Libet at the University of California is against free will as we normally understand it.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-free-will-neuroscience-process-theology.html

Doing an action is the end result of millions of thought processes and various shifts in brain activity. That the areas of the brain concerned with the action of a particular choice light up a few milliseconds before we are perform the act is of no shock to me.

Free will comes from the idea that we have a non-physical soul that is free from cause and effect. It has the independence to make a choice without that choice being caused by anything in the physical world.

I very much disagree, I don't believe in a soul or spirit but accept that we have free will.
For example, right now I need the toilet. All the physical stimuli and my instincts are telling me to relieve myself, yet here I am typing this response to you because I have chosen to ignore those instincts. In fact I could sit here indefinitely of my own free will, eventually the choice will be made for me - go to the toilet or **** my pants here in this chair, but even free will yields to biology.

 

[Willamena]

I don't see it, thought exists no matter what, doubt as a thought exists, it requires a leap to say that the thought or the doubt infers an "I".

No matter how much doubt-thought one engages in, there is always one engaging it.

 

[Willamena]

Kant and his contemporary Lichtenberg were both dissatisfied with Descartes argument. Lichtenberg pointed out that Descartes (edit) should not have drawn this conclusion, the idea that the cogito shows that there is a thought but not an 'I' that thinks it is Lichtenbergs.

Thoughts, hanging in the ether? How do we determine whose thought it is, then?

Kant felt that Descartes wrongly described the certainty of self knowledge, I cannot extend my sceptisism into the subjective sphere, so I can be sure of my present mental states, but I cannot be sure of what I am or of whether or not there is an 'I' to whom these states belong.
Kant argued that doubt shows there is a point of view and that the transcendental unity of apperception provides the minimal description of our point of view, I can know one thing - that there is a unity of consciousness. The transcendental deduction shows that the truth of transcedence is presupposed in the existence of experience.
So thought presupposes transcendental unity, not that I am.
I think .
Edit:- I should add that as with everything Kantian I'm not sure I understand what he was trying to say - but this is what I took from it.

What is "the transcendental unity of apperception" transcending?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes? No? Why or why not?

My inclination is to think that our choices are not entirely free. That is, we have a choice of A, B, and C in a given situation. Using reason, we can choose one course of action while rejecting the other two.

That is, I can choose one career path over another. etc

Thoughts?

James

I kind of like the way 3.14 put it.

Here's my take on it. I don't believe in gods so I do what I want but in the guidelines of the law. I mean...I'm not going to drive my car down the opposite side of the road...because I know it's against the law.

My personal opinion is the "god" of the bible/quran has not granted mankind "free will"......In this context free will is something you "believe" you have because you lack the ability to know what the outcome of your actions are going to be.

If this god is (omnipotent/omniscient) then everything that you do, don't do, say, don't say, think or don't think has already been known by this god before the foundation of the world. Surely you can't be punished for a decision he knew you'd make......way back before he created the universe. How could he? Everything is by his "design".. Surely this god is perfect and everything that he designs is perfect.....unless he willed somethings to be perfect and others not...even so...it would be his will....surely "everything" submits to his will.......IMO

 

[sandandfoam]

Thoughts, hanging in the ether? How do we determine whose thought it is, then?

That's the point. As far as I can make out Kant was saying that thought indicates unity not an 'I'.

What is "the transcendental unity of apperception" transcending?

The subjective viewpoint or 'I'.

 

[Willamena]

The subjective viewpoint or 'I'.

Then that is a statement that "I", as a subjective viewpoint, exists.

 

[sandandfoam]

Then that is a statement that "I", as a subjective viewpoint, exists.

Sure, I never denied it. My point is that I don't think Descartes' method of doubt results in "I think therefore I am". I think the method of doubt leads to "there are thoughts". I said I think to infer an 'I' from the method of doubt requires a leap.
I dipped my toe into my (probably poor) understanding of Kant to answer Matt's question as to how thought could exist without an agent. I tried to lay out how I think he was saying that doubt belongs to the unity of consciousness that defines my point of view. This requires no leap to infer an 'I'