Free will, how does it work again?

[Marisa]

Why don't you read the book?

I suppose my issue with it is...if you completely bypass the mind, then you completely bypass any "thinking" at all. Or rather, it makes all "thinking" an illusion (ya know...automatons here).

Understanding how the brain functions has a huge impact, for instance in the field of mental health. Harris being a neuroscientist is in the field learning to understand how the brain functions. While anyone can philosophize, including Harris, this particular book of his I chose to recommend in this conversation because he's speaking as a scientist. I understand why it might be uncomfortable to think that free will may only exist to a limited degree, or not at all, and I found this work of Harris' on the subject intriguing because it brings up extremely uncomfortable questions (as I recall, none of which are religious in nature). I personally think Harris' often gets dismissed out of hand by some because of his outpokenness on the subject of religion, and while he does write a lot about religion, he's not a one-trick-pony.

 

[Marisa]

Feeling hungry is helping to make the right decision and which is "to eat", so not to eat is the stupid choice in the normal cases.
If you don't accept the concept of the soul then it's your choice but others have a different choice than yours.

When did I ever suggest anything different? Intellectual capacity has nothing to do with this equation. Bottom line: you can't choose not to be hungry. Understanding that doesn't cancel out your chosen deity.

 

[Stevicus]

That was not a reply to what I actually wrote. We are not communicating.

I suppose not, but it's not that I haven't tried. You give up too easily.

 

[Skwim]

Understanding how the brain functions has a huge impact, for instance in the field of mental health. Harris being a neuroscientist is in the field learning to understand how the brain functions. While anyone can philosophize, including Harris, this particular book of his I chose to recommend in this conversation because he's speaking as a scientist. I understand why it might be uncomfortable to think that free will may only exist to a limited degree, or not at all, and I found this work of Harris' on the subject intriguing because it brings up extremely uncomfortable questions (as I recall, none of which are religious in nature). I personally think Harris' often gets dismissed out of hand by some because of his outpokenness on the subject of religion, and while he does write a lot about religion, he's not a one-trick-pony.

I read his book a couple of years ago when it came out and found it quite persuasive, although his isn't the tack I take in rejecting freewill. So, as I see it, there are two good arguments for dismissing freewill.

 

[Marisa]

I read his book a couple of years ago when it came out and found it quite persuasive, although his isn't the tack I take in rejecting freewill. So, as I see it, there are two good arguments for dismissing freewill.

I just enjoy learning. The more perspectives the better. And if I find one that bumps an old one off the map, I'm okay with that.

 

[FearGod]

When did I ever suggest anything different? Intellectual capacity has nothing to do with this equation. Bottom line: you can't choose not to be hungry. Understanding that doesn't cancel out your chosen deity.

But i can eat any time i wish even if i'm not feeling hungry, sensation is an indicator for me to have the right decision, for example i may have a headache and that indicate that i may have a health problem that i should fix.

 

[Marisa]

But i can eat any time i wish even if i'm not feeling hungry, sensation is an indicator for me to have the right decision, for example i may have a headache and that indicate that i may have a health problem that i should fix.

You're missing the point, which is very simply that there are numerous choices you absolutely can make. To not feel hungry is not among them.

 

[FearGod]

You're missing the point, which is very simply that there are numerous choices you absolutely can make. To not feel hungry is not among them.

That isn't a choice, feeling hungry is an indication for me to make a decision. indicator

Let me explain it to you in much easier way,
I want to make a cup of tea, after pouring the boiling water in the cup, i added 8 spoons of sugar,
what do you think my body response will be to the taste of the tea.

So my taste buds is an indicator for me to make the right decision and in this case i have to choose as not to drink the cup of tea.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That isn't a choice, feeling hungry is an indication for me to make a decision. indicator

Let me explain it to you in much easier way,
I want to make a cup of tea, after pouring the boiling water in the cup, i added 8 spoons of sugar,
what do you think my body response will be to the taste of the tea.

So my taste buds is an indicator for me to make the right decision and in this case i have to choose as not to drink the cup of tea.

Are you aware that decisions are not made spontaneously? That all decisions require some change? That is called incentive.

 

[Marisa]

That isn't a choice, feeling hungry is an indication for me to make a decision. indicator

Let me explain it to you in much easier way,
I want to make a cup of tea, after pouring the boiling water in the cup, i added 8 spoons of sugar,
what do you think my body response will be to the taste of the tea.

So my taste buds is an indicator for me to make the right decision and in this case i have to choose as not to drink the cup of tea.

Well good, it seems you understand then that free will probably doesn't exit. As long as something is spurring your decision making, it's not really "free". That's the point Harris makes in his book.

 

[columbus]

On a basis of researching common discourse it is summarized what one implicitly already knows about free will.

Common discourse is a very poor way to learn about subtle and complex concepts like human consciousness and decision making. People use too many words and terms that are poorly defined and understood. They tend to use the same words to mean different things and not realize the logical fallacy because it supports their preconceived notions.

Free will is the illusion created by the limited ability of humans to understand their own decision making process. It doesn't really exist any more than any other illusion.
Humans are not able to choose anything other than what they believe to be in their best interests at the time. These choices are often inexplicably self destructive. This is because humans are weak and ignorant and often make choices without understanding why.
The more information we have and are able to process the freer we are. The problem with religion is that it attempts to limit human information to what long dead humans believed. Your attempt to do that in this thread is why you have not gotten very far.

People who don't have Faith in the human authorities you believe in aren't buying your argument.

Tom

 

[FearGod]

Well good, it seems you understand then that free will probably doesn't exit. As long as something is spurring your decision making, it's not really "free". That's the point Harris makes in his book.

No, not true.
If in a case that i drink the tea regardless of its taste then it means that i don't have a free will. but as i can refuse to drink it then i can make another cup of tea with much less sugar then that is a free will.

Can you love a girl or a boy by force or by your free will ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, not true.
If in a case that i drink the tea regardless of its taste then it means that i don't have a free will. but as i can refuse to drink it then i can make another cup of tea with much less sugar then that is a free will.

Can you love a girl or a boy by force or by your free will ?

You are confusing issues of very, extremely, complex ways of choosing, with the basic logic of how choosing works. This topic is about the basic logic of how choosing works.

The key to understanding choosing is subjectivity. Simply there are at least 2 correct answers to a question about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, any which answer can be chosen, resulting in an opinion. A man makes a decision. Then as an observer you can choose for instance between the options if the decision was out of love, or if it was out of hate, making your opinion.

The atheist does not make an opinion, instead the atheist says that evidence forces to a conclusion if the decision was out of love, or hate, resulting in a fact. The atheist does not choose. And the concept of choosing does not function without the agency of the decision being regarded as a categorically subjective issue. Therefore the atheists will also reject free will is real. Redefines free will to make the word choosing use the same logic as being forced, or call it an illusion, etc.

That difference is the discord between atheists and religionists, the discord between evolutionists and creationists.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Have a bunch of dwarfs in my head, programs, agenda they work like a little democracy, arguing between themselves, depending on the circumstance one of the dwarfs gets to take control for a little while.

 

[Skwim]

I well know how people are enslaved to original sin. How they are under such enormous pressure from authority figures in their lives, or pressure from their own ideals, that they require factual (scientific) certitude that what they do is good.

And having rejected subjectivity, their concept of free will does not function anymore, and then they start to spread their nonsense that free will is not real on internet forums.

So people reject freewill, directly or indirectly, because of original sin? If that's the case then I would think they can hardly be blamed for their "nonsense," but should be shown mercy and compassion for their plight.

 

[chlotilde]

The issue is working out the function of the brain and its properties rather than just ignoring those properites. Then from there we have to find out what causes these properties.

And what a ride that will be as psychologists cling to their theories of Mind.

Hey, I’m a scientist by trade, I recognize the dualism of mind/brain. I just “dislike” telling people they are “loosing their minds” (figuratively or literally, IDK,lol). I just hope the scientists can wrap it up better than the “feel good” words they use today; (a quote by Sam Harris I am pulling from edge.org)

“But even if one thinks that the human mind is entirely the product of physics, the reality of consciousness becomes no less wondrous, and the difference between happiness and suffering no less important.”

 

[Curious George]

FREE WILL : Sam Harris

I will see your book and raise you a video.

 

[Skwim]

I will see your book and raise you a video.

Totally irrelevant to the freewill issue, which is only an issue because it stands in opposition to determinism; a controversy that easily boils down to a simple position of freewill proponents: "I could have done differently." To which the determinist counters: "No you couldn't."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Have a bunch of dwarfs in my head, programs, agenda they work like a little democracy, arguing between themselves, depending on the circumstance one of the dwarfs gets to take control for a little while.

Yes, I think that's a pretty good description, a muddle of conflicting needs, it explains why the choices we make aren't always very rational.

 

[Kirran]

I really think we should just boycott further discussions of this. Nobody's making any progress anymore. The only progress that's ever been made in these discussions is to realise that we can make no progress.

EDIT: Also, this is in the wrong forum, no?