Freewill Revisited

[Koldo]

I staid that we use freewill even in a passive action such as hearing.
it seems that your statements of what i havent shown are changing. You did not ask me to explain how our consciousness allows for more than one outcome from the same input before now?

ahh, well then that is simple. Without consciousness you cannot want. This "wanting" that you are attributing as a necessary cause before an action is part of the freewill process. That is before you can want you must determine what you want. One needn't want to determine what one wants, that is redundant. Determining what one wants is part of the conscious experience.

You are the one who claimed it was possible to assess something without control over what you are assessing or how you are assessing it. I am showing that it is necessary by illustrating how absurd your notion is. I have already calculated the nth term from a formula. It is you who is claiming that you too can assess this term without knowing what you are assessing or how you are assessing it, while still preserving truth value. I am just here to check your math.

Once again, you have not shown that free will is necessary to assess what you are hearing. I have not claimed it is possible to assess something without knowing what you are assessing. This is a strawman. What I have stated is that control over what and how you access it is not required. You haven't shown why my position is absurd. You have merely stated it.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain how consciousness allows one to choose in a manner that avoids the infinite regress problem. It is just the wording that changed. It has been the same request all along.

What do you mean by determining what one wants ? Do you mean as in figuring out what one wants or as is choosing what one wants ? The former is compatible with my argument, while the latter has to be explained, for how does one choose what one wants without choosing what one wants ?

The biggest issue is that you are making statements you have not substantied.

 

[Curious George]

Once again, you have not shown that free will is necessary to assess what you are hearing. I have not claimed it is possible to assess something without knowing what you are assessing. This is a strawman.

you said:

don't need to have control over what I assess nor how I assess. I just need to be able to assess it to say so.

So please exactly what must you have to be able to assess it?

What I have stated is that control over what and how you access it is not required. You haven't shown why my position is absurd. You have merely stated it.

Sure I have. I denied you any control over something and asked you to assess it. You could not.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain how consciousness allows one to choose in a manner that avoids the infinite regress problem. It is just the wording that changed. It has been the same request all along.

changing the wording changes the meaning.

What do you mean by determining what one wants ? Do you mean as in figuring out what one wants or as is choosing what one wants ? The former is compatible with my argument, while the latter has to be explained, for how does one choose what one wants without choosing what one wants ?

One must interact with ones environment in order to want anything. This can involve conscious thought or sib-conscious thought. It is through this process that possible outcomes arise.

The biggest issue is that you are making statements you have not substantied.

What would suffice as substantiation in your mind?

 

[Koldo]

you said:

So please exactly what must you have to be able to assess it?

Sure I have. I denied you any control over something and asked you to assess it. You could not.
changing the wording changes the meaning.


One must interact with ones environment in order to want anything. This can involve conscious thought or sib-conscious thought. It is through this process that possible outcomes arise.

What would suffice as substantiation in your mind?

The only logical requeriment to be able to assess something is to be able to experience it in some way. In other words, if you were to assess what you are hearing you need to hear something in the first place. Anything other than that requires justification that you have not provided.

It is obvious that if I haven't access to something I can't assess it, but I don't need to have control over it. I might just stumble upon it for instance. You haven't shown why control is necessary.

It has been the same question all along. HOW consciousness solves the problem ?
Through what process exactly? Stating that your wants come from your mind is in agreement with the position I hold. You need to show how you can get two outcomes from the same mind. This is what I want from you.

 

[Curious George]

The only logical requeriment to be able to assess something is to be able to experience it in some way. In other words, if you were to assess what you are hearing you need to hear something in the first place. Anything other than that requires justification that you have not provided.

It is obvious that if I haven't access to something I can't assess it, but I don't need to have control over it. I might just stumble upon it for instance. You haven't shown why control is necessary.

Are you suggesting that unconscious people can assess music? You can prove that?

It has been the same question all along. HOW consciousness solves the problem ?
Through what process exactly? Stating that your wants come from your mind is in agreement with the position I hold. You need to show how you can get two outcomes from the same mind. This is what I want from you.

Consciousness solves the problem by differing from unconscious reflex. That is thinking about something, focusing on something and analyzing something demonstrates statistically that we can have variation in our actions as a result of our conscious interaction with our environment.

This conscious interaction is the base unit. Because this is the point on which the variation turns. Do you choose door number one, door number two, or no door at all? Your choice, possibly different from my choice, is contingent on your conscious interaction with the stimuli. You can try to look for infinite regress but you will still end with the necessity of your conscious interaction with your environment. It is only this conscious interaction that allows for the possibility of choice. What is more, we can affect your choice by altering your consciousness.

Your conscious interplay, how you focus, how you analyze, and how you think about something changes how you act. You can claim that these aspects are merely effects of prior causes, which in turn are effects of prior causes, (did someone mention infinite regress) but this is contrary to our everyday experience, and contrary to all scientific knowledge.

We cannot claim any truth to statistical analysis if determinism is true. We cannot claim any truth our controlled experiments if we cannot, in fact, have any control. We cannot claim validity to our deductive logic if we do not have control to conclude differently.

Determinism is a form of solipsism. I imagine that solipsists used to imagine themselves, much like determinists, to have some greater insight or understanding. The position itself is contradictory. There is no valid way to conclude that determinism is true.

So we have two options. One common to pur everyday experience, that we assume as a basis for all knowledge and understanding, and another that people sometimes imagine is true but never act as though it is true.

It is the determinists who make the extraordinary claim. It is also the determinists without any supporting evidence, let alone the extraordinary evidence that is required to support such a claim.

 

[Vaderecta]

Are you suggesting that unconscious people can assess music? You can prove that?

Consciousness solves the problem by differing from unconscious reflex. That is thinking about something, focusing on something and analyzing something demonstrates statistically that we can have variation in our actions as a result of our conscious interaction with our environment.

This conscious interaction is the base unit. Because this is the point on which the variation turns. Do you choose door number one, door number two, or no door at all? Your choice, possibly different from my choice, is contingent on your conscious interaction with the stimuli. You can try to look for infinite regress but you will still end with the necessity of your conscious interaction with your environment. It is only this conscious interaction that allows for the possibility of choice. What is more, we can affect your choice by altering your consciousness.

Your conscious interplay, how you focus, how you analyze, and how you think about something changes how you act. You can claim that these aspects are merely effects of prior causes, which in turn are effects of prior causes, (did someone mention infinite regress) but this is contrary to our everyday experience, and contrary to all scientific knowledge.

We cannot claim any truth to statistical analysis if determinism is true. We cannot claim any truth our controlled experiments if we cannot, in fact, have any control. We cannot claim validity to our deductive logic if we do not have control to conclude differently.

Determinism is a form of solipsism. I imagine that solipsists used to imagine themselves, much like determinists, to have some greater insight or understanding. The position itself is contradictory. There is no valid way to conclude that determinism is true.

So we have two options. One common to pur everyday experience, that we assume as a basis for all knowledge and understanding, and another that people sometimes imagine is true but never act as though it is true.

It is the determinists who make the extraordinary claim. It is also the determinists without any supporting evidence, let alone the extraordinary evidence that is required to support such a claim.

The power of christ compels you to come up with a better argument. (Not really... Christ is probably fake mate but then again it might have more power over you than this crazy argument)

I won't bore people but your first example of choosing doors as some form of a free choice of your consciousness is simply false and puts everyone on a pedestal of being able to freely choose anything regardless of their past experiences. You just seem to not understand yourself so I don't expect you to understand others.

 

[Curious George]

The power of christ compels you to come up with a better argument. (Not really... Christ is probably fake mate but then again it might have more power over you than this crazy argument)

I won't bore people but your first example of choosing doors as some form of a free choice of your consciousness is simply false and puts everyone on a pedestal of being able to freely choose anything regardless of their past experiences. You just seem to not understand yourself so I don't expect you to understand others.

Are you agreeing that alterations of consciousness lead to variation in outcome? I agree. Certain options can carry favor based on ones mental state, but we can only admit this by acknowledging that conscious interaction with our environment plays a role in decisionmaking. Thus, we must assume freewill in order to demonstrate in what ways it is limited.

To me, determinists sound like the religious. I really cannot tell the difference between it happened that way because it could not have happened any other way and it happened that way because it was some god's plan.

 

[Vaderecta]

Are you agreeing that alterations of consciousness lead to variation in outcome? I agree. Certain options can carry favor based on ones mental state, but we can only admit this by acknowledging that conscious interaction with our environment plays a role in decisionmaking. Thus, we must assume freewill in order to demonstrate in what ways it is limited.

To me, determinists sound like the religious. I really cannot tell the difference between it happened that way because it could not have happened any other way and it happened that way because it was some god's plan.

No, I don't think you really understand determinism. I think you have an idea of what it is and disagree with yourself. Determinism - Wikipedia

To focus on your example... Lets take a 100 people and have them choose a door among three doors. They all have free will. Lets have them do this exercise every day for a year and every time they choose door one or two we will just not feed them. Only when they choose door three do they get food or water. Here you come on the first day of the new year and say they all have free will and nothing that has happened before can determine their choice. Technically you are right... They could still choose any other door but do you believe the actions of the last year might have some influence their decision?

This is super oversimplified. But every person you ever met has had their own influences which influence their choices. Everyone wants to believe they are always making free choices but is that really true?

 

[Curious George]

No, I don't think you really understand determinism. I think you have an idea of what it is and disagree with yourself. Determinism - Wikipedia

To focus on your example... Lets take a 100 people and have them choose a door among three doors. They all have free will. Lets have them do this exercise every day for a year and every time they choose door one or two we will just not feed them. Only when they choose door three do they get food or water. Here you come on the first day of the new year and say they all have free will and nothing that has happened before can determine their choice. Technically you are right... They could still choose any other door but do you believe the actions of the last year might have some influence their decision?

This is super oversimplified. But every person you ever met has had their own influences which influence their choices. Everyone wants to believe they are always making free choices but is that really true?

It sounds to me as though it is you qho does not understand freewill. Any degree of control necessitates freewill. Freewill does not deny that their are forces that influence our decisions. Freewill only asserts that in some instances we make decisions.

Determinism asserts that freewill is an illusion no control exists. They believe that if we were able to account for all factors that would be able to predict all human behavior because human behavior is entailed by the prior causes. A roll of the dice could in fact be predicted with absolute accuracy were we able to account for all of the physical factors. Determinists , without solid evidemce, believe the same is true for human behavior.

 

[Vaderecta]

It sounds to me as though it is you qho does not understand freewill. Any degree of control necessitates freewill. Freewill does not deny that their are forces that influence our decisions. Freewill only asserts that in some instances we make decisions.

Determinism asserts that freewill is an illusion no control exists. They believe that if we were able to account for all factors that would be able to predict all human behavior because human behavior is entailed by the prior causes. A roll of the dice could in fact be predicted with absolute accuracy were we able to account for all of the physical factors. Determinists , without solid evidemce, believe the same is true for human behavior.

Sure mate. I don't think you disagree with me though.

 

[Curious George]

Sure mate. I don't think you disagree with me though.

I disagree with determinism (for the same reason I disagree with solipsism.

 

[Vaderecta]

I disagree with determinism (for the same reason I disagree with solipsism.

I wasn't arguing against the things you disbelieve in. Who knows how you define those or how you choose to portray your disbelief? It's certainly not clear to me. Based on your examples though I don't think you get your arguments. I'm not being mean. I have my own beliefs too and throw them out there to be picked apart too and love the feedback.

I just think your examples are not really useful in elucidating why all of us humans definitively have freewill.

 

[Curious George]

I wasn't arguing against the things you disbelieve in. Who knows how you define those or how you choose to portray your disbelief? It's certainly not clear to me. Based on your examples though I don't think you get your arguments. I'm not being mean. I have my own beliefs too and throw them out there to be picked apart too and love the feedback.

I just think your examples are not really useful in elucidating why all of us humans definitively have freewill.

It is not that we definitively have freewill. It is that not having freewill destroys all truth value. The discussion was how is freewill possible.

Many determinists do not see room for freewill. So my effort here was to show how freewill is possible and how control is necessary.

Control however is only necessary for justified truth. Truth would still be possible, but justification would not. Therefore we cannot have any justified true beliefs. Control is assumed in both deductive reasoning and empirical studies. Thus denying control denies justified true belief (knowledge), empirical studies (science), and logic. Why someone would want to deny all of that is beyond me. But similar to solipsism when you deny logic you deny your ability to assert somethimg like determinism. Thus asserting determinism contradicts ones ability to assert determinism. This is an absurdity.

 

[Vaderecta]

It is not that we definitively have freewill. It is that not having freewill destroys all truth value. The discussion was how is freewill possible.

Many determinists do not see room for freewill. So my effort here was to show how freewill is possible and how control is necessary.

Control however is only necessary for justified truth. Truth would still be possible, but justification would not. Therefore we cannot have any justified true beliefs. Control is assumed in both deductive reasoning and empirical studies. Thus denying control denies justified true belief (knowledge), empirical studies (science), and logic. Why someone would want to deny all of that is beyond me. But similar to solipsism when you deny logic you deny your ability to assert somethimg like determinism. Thus asserting determinism contradicts ones ability to assert determinism. This is an absurdity.

Right. I don't think you understand the OP or your contradictions to that argument but I respect your opinion.

 

[Curious George]

Right. I don't think you understand the OP or your contradictions to that argument but I respect your opinion.

My responses were not directed at the op, they were related to the OP and directed at a posters assertions that no freewill exists.

 

[Koldo]

Are you suggesting that unconscious people can assess music? You can prove that?

Consciousness solves the problem by differing from unconscious reflex. That is thinking about something, focusing on something and analyzing something demonstrates statistically that we can have variation in our actions as a result of our conscious interaction with our environment.

This conscious interaction is the base unit. Because this is the point on which the variation turns. Do you choose door number one, door number two, or no door at all? Your choice, possibly different from my choice, is contingent on your conscious interaction with the stimuli. You can try to look for infinite regress but you will still end with the necessity of your conscious interaction with your environment. It is only this conscious interaction that allows for the possibility of choice. What is more, we can affect your choice by altering your consciousness.

Your conscious interplay, how you focus, how you analyze, and how you think about something changes how you act. You can claim that these aspects are merely effects of prior causes, which in turn are effects of prior causes, (did someone mention infinite regress) but this is contrary to our everyday experience, and contrary to all scientific knowledge.

We cannot claim any truth to statistical analysis if determinism is true. We cannot claim any truth our controlled experiments if we cannot, in fact, have any control. We cannot claim validity to our deductive logic if we do not have control to conclude differently.

Determinism is a form of solipsism. I imagine that solipsists used to imagine themselves, much like determinists, to have some greater insight or understanding. The position itself is contradictory. There is no valid way to conclude that determinism is true.

So we have two options. One common to pur everyday experience, that we assume as a basis for all knowledge and understanding, and another that people sometimes imagine is true but never act as though it is true.

It is the determinists who make the extraordinary claim. It is also the determinists without any supporting evidence, let alone the extraordinary evidence that is required to support such a claim.

I have been able to assess the music I was hearing while sleeping if that's what you are talking about. If you are talking about someone completely unconscious then that has nothing to do with what I said since this person wouldn't be experiencing what they are hearing.

I don't disagree that consciousness is necessary to make a choice. As I have said before: without consciousness I wouldn't call it a choice. But what determines how long we focus on something for instance ? It is our choice to do so. Why would someone pick door 1 over 2 ? Can you answer this question without resorting to what the individual wants to do ?

Consciousness without our 'wants' is unable to tell us what to choose. We are driven by goals and without those goals we can't assess what is better to choose. Our choices would be absolutely random. But that is not what our experience tells us. What they tell us is that our choices are strictly related to our wants. Choosing is the process of understanding what consequences your actions have and relating them to your wants. It is the moment we assess what we want and act in accordance with that.

Yes, we can claim truth even in the absence of control. Merely claiming otherwise is not an argument. It is merely a statement without support.

Libertarian free will is for those that haven't thought it through, so terribly used to thinking we have it since childhood that one can't let go. It is a logically contradictory position. It consists of a major misunderstanding in how our choices work.

 

[ecco]

But every person you ever met has had their own influences which influence their choices.

Did you just say that people have "choices"? If people have choices, then determinism goes out the door.

 

[Anna Therese]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense to a degree. We can choose things to do. Sometimes we are not free to do what we want. Spiritually speaking, we are always free to choose good or evil in this life and in every area of our thoughts, words, deeds.

 

[Vaderecta]

It makes sense to a degree. We can choose things to do. Sometimes we are not free to do what we want. Spiritually speaking, we are always free to choose good or evil in this life and in every area of our thoughts, words, deeds.

Really? You think people are actively wandering around thinking I could be evil right now but no... I choose the good path... I will be good today. Who knows how I'll feel in an hour from now but right now, I've just gone to church and I feel like I should choose to be good. So good it is. You really think everyone, yourself included is always choosing to be good or evil and it's just their free will and their choice and they are just always picking the good or evil path?

 

[tayla]

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

Yes, these things limit our freedom but do not eradicate it. I can't fly to the moon but I can choose to look out the front door. My genes didn't make me do that.

 

[Vaderecta]

Yes, these things limit our freedom but do not eradicate it. I can't fly to the moon but I can choose to look out the front door. My genes didn't make me do that.

Perhaps we are getting somewhere? You comprehend a front door, the moon, the notion that one could choose to look out such. You seemingly have more abilities then simpler creatures including the dream that you are truly free.