|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 18, 2009 21:50:08 GMT -5
No, I believe my consciousness and my intelligence, so to speak, are essentially the same thing. Both are deterministic, none is "free". How do you define free will?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 18, 2009 21:56:34 GMT -5
I would think free will is the choice to choose between various actions that are equal and unequal.
I believe in free will. If it doesn't exist, then my internal programming is to believe in free will.
From a secular standpoint, free will exists because it exists. Circular logic, but it's the only way to avoid an infinite spiral into "how did THAT originate?" right down to the material for a neutron. Which causes a lot of people to throw their hands up and say "Goddidit".
Either way... this topic is kinda pointless. How would we know the difference if free will didn't exist? Or if it did?
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 18, 2009 22:00:20 GMT -5
No, I believe my consciousness and my intelligence, so to speak, are essentially the same thing. That's what I meant in my first paragraph. I define free will as when your actions are cause your consciousness. Your definition is slightly narrower, requiring that these actions are caused ONLY by your consciousness. Right now we are just arguing semantics.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 18, 2009 22:08:09 GMT -5
From a secular standpoint, free will exists because it exists. Circular logic, but it's the only way to avoid an infinite spiral into "how did THAT originate?" right down to the material for a neutron. Which causes a lot of people to throw their hands up and say "Goddidit". I think the argument could be better described as: Free will is a subjective experience. I have a subjective experience associated with free will. I can either choose or choose not to define that experience with the term "free will".
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 18, 2009 22:11:48 GMT -5
I can either choose or choose not to define that experience with the term "free will".
If there is no free will, then I can choose nothing.
...what's this pink fluid leaking out of my ears?
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 18, 2009 22:55:58 GMT -5
I can either choose or choose not to define that experience with the term "free will".If there is no free will, then I can choose nothing. ...what's this pink fluid leaking out of my ears? Sorry, I guess my explanation was incomplete. One might also decide to come up with metaphysical explanation for that subjective experience of making decisions. I am trying to simplify the debate into what I see as 3 arguments: 1. The experience should be defined as "free will". 2. The experience should not be defined as "free will" because to some people the term also implies a metaphysical explanation. 3. Free will exists and there is a metaphysical explanation for it.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 18, 2009 23:42:11 GMT -5
I can either choose or choose not to define that experience with the term "free will".If there is no free will, then I can choose nothing. ...what's this pink fluid leaking out of my ears? Sorry, I guess my explanation was incomplete. One might also decide to come up with metaphysical explanation for that subjective experience of making decisions. I am trying to simplify the debate into what I see as 3 arguments: 1. The experience should be defined as "free will". 2. The experience should not be defined as "free will" because to some people the term also implies a metaphysical explanation. 3. Free will exists and there is a metaphysical explanation for it. I was joking
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 18, 2009 23:54:56 GMT -5
So that's why your comment didn't make any sense to me. I thought you were trying to say you can choose to define free will as meaning neither one because it doesn't exist.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 1:12:23 GMT -5
If you exclude randomness, then yes, they future is set. Anything that is not random is deterministic, and given perfect knowledge of a deterministic system you can predict every future state. I fail to see how that is an argument for free will. It wasn't an argument for free will. I was never arguing for or against free will. Just posing a question and giving the arguments I've had internally trying to reason whether or not it exists, and why I've currently had to remain neutral. And while I'm not sure whether or not you interpreted randomness the same way I would I'll just say this. What many people interpret as random are merely things that seem random, but are predetermined, simply hard to predict (for example the flip of a coin or throwing a pair of dice, not actually random, it depends entirely on how you flip/throw them). The randomness I was discounting was quantum randomness, for example, if you look at a pair of entangled particles, how they will be spinning, which in all honesty physicists aren't really sure is random or not. My general reasoning being is I don't think such randomness could have an effect on our lives here. It only really affects things on the small scale. So the reason this bothers me, is that it means all your decision making process, any internal deliberation, and even the final outcome, are decided before you enter the situation (which is also decided). Even if we count quantum randomness, that isn't under our influence in any conceivable way.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 1:24:57 GMT -5
If you believe human intelligence is deterministic and consciousness is a product of human intelligence then it obviously means you have free will. Your actions are the product of your mind and consciousness. It appears to me people who don't believe in free will think that their intelligence is deterministic but their consciousness is a separate entity with separate thoughts observing it. I define 'free will' mostly on that first word. I don't think anything that is determined as being free at all. We all obviously possess 'will' but my question is to whether or not that will is free? If our actions and decisions are predetermined, do you consider that free? And yea, if our intelligence is deterministic so is our consciousness. I would agree Current, intelligence and consciousness are pretty much the same thing. I would say consciousness arises from our intelligence, and that intelligence is our rational decision making abilities, whereas consciousness is more the sense of self, but again, both would be deterministic.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 1:31:01 GMT -5
Either way... this topic is kinda pointless. How would we know the difference if free will didn't exist? Or if it did? I really really hate reasoning like that. Just because something isn't determinable with our current powers, does that mean the question is pointless to ponder or debate? It's like asking the question as to whether god exists or not. Or ancient people asking where our origins lay. Just because you don't (or possibly never will) have the ability to determine the difference between two things, doesn't mean it doesn't matter, or is pointless to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 2:30:44 GMT -5
I define 'free will' mostly on that first word. I don't think anything that is determined as being free at all. We all obviously possess 'will' but my question is to whether or not that will is free? If our actions and decisions are predetermined, do you consider that free? Imagine a conscious traffic light. You could say it doesn't have free will because it is forced to endlessly change colors on a timer. You could also say it does have free will because "it" is defined as the programming which causes it to change colors, that's what it wants to do. Personally, I don't feel a need to define free will as either one. I just try to use whatever definition other people are using. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet - from Romeo and Juliet
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 2:42:44 GMT -5
I define 'free will' mostly on that first word. I don't think anything that is determined as being free at all. We all obviously possess 'will' but my question is to whether or not that will is free? If our actions and decisions are predetermined, do you consider that free? Imagine a conscious traffic light. You could say it doesn't have free will because it is forced to endlessly change colors on a timer. You could also say it does have free will because "it" is defined as the programming which causes it to change colors, that's what it wants to do. Personally, I don't feel a need to define free will as either one. I just try to use whatever definition other people are using. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet - from Romeo and JulietEh, I would say the light doesn't have free will, as when it changes colors is determined by when cars stop there, how many, etc. It never chooses anything, simply takes an input->output. Again, this is how you define it, but I guess in this case I was looking for an answer to my definition. I mean, how can you consider something that is constrained as free? Just by general design/engineering terminology something is free if it is not constrained to one possibility. If we are constrained to one possibility then we are not free.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 2:51:26 GMT -5
Eh, I would say the light doesn't have free will, as when it changes colors is determined by when cars stop there, how many, etc. It never chooses anything, simply takes an input->output. Again, this is how you define it, but I guess in this case I was looking for an answer to my definition. I mean, how can you consider something that is constrained as free? Just by general design/engineering terminology something is free if it is not constrained to one possibility. If we are constrained to one possibility then we are not free. I was trying to use a metaphor, I doubt anyone thinks traffic lights are conscious. Come back to me when you find something that definition of freedom applies to.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 2:55:30 GMT -5
Eh, I would say the light doesn't have free will, as when it changes colors is determined by when cars stop there, how many, etc. It never chooses anything, simply takes an input->output. Again, this is how you define it, but I guess in this case I was looking for an answer to my definition. I mean, how can you consider something that is constrained as free? Just by general design/engineering terminology something is free if it is not constrained to one possibility. If we are constrained to one possibility then we are not free. I was trying to use a metaphor, I doubt anyone thinks traffic lights are conscious. Come back to me when you find something that definition of freedom applies to. I understand the metaphor, and was attempting to continue it to illustrate my point. Are humans nothing more then a complex function that takes input->output? And secondly, thats why I started this thread, I am not sure as to whether or not that definition applies to anything. I would say it would be humans and animals if it did. But I have no idea. I can't seem to think how it could, but I certainly have the feeling it does.
|
|