Autism and disbelief in free will

Post Reply New Topic

So TallyMan - how do you expect to ever be everywhere, nowhere and everywhen if you can't exert control to actualise this result? I'm assuming you're talking about a state of mind that surpasses all mundane experiences - but how do you logically explain this attainment? Chance? Hope? God?

If science tells us free will is an illusion because we are actually driven by subconscious impulses then a human being (in the lifetime of a human being) has about the same potential as an animal (in the lifetime of an animal).

The whole point to having an intelligence is that we can use it to influence our choices - to make wise choices. If this is not free will then I must be having a problem with the definition.

For anyone with access to history and current events to inflate the activities and results of humanity into the concept of wise choices would be highly amusing if it were not so abysmally tragic.

I'm not talking about humanity in general. I'm talking about the potential of one human being as an individual. How does one person move from being completely consumed by their own self-interest to having a concern for the welfare of others? I'm just interested how science explains the development of one person's altruistic intentions in a world conditioned with self-interest.

See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 230456.htm

http://myreality.churchofreality.org/in ... wtopic=430

Those articles don't seem to answer my question. The first one is basically saying that altruism is conditioned from social learning rather than genetics. This seems to be contradictory to the idea that humanity is generally comprised of self-absorbed individuals. So I'm sure there would be instances where we find an altruistic person in a culture devoid of altruism. And also there are people who develop their altruism that far surpasses the normal level of altruism in their society. So what makes those people do that? It's not social conditioning. It's not genetics - they come from a family of selfish people. So what else could be the conditioning for their increase in altruism?

And the second article was quite irrelevant. It was basically just saying how young a human can be when they first display signs of altruism. And chimps can display similar signs but their motivation is different.

So please - what causes a person to give up their self-interest for the interest of others despite the fact they are living in a world where they don't observe such behaviour, and even if they do - not to the level that they develop it? And despite the fact it is not conditioned by genetics either?

I would like to argue that it is our natural impulse that causes us to serve our own needs. But it is our exertion - through wise and compassionate choices - that causes us to serve the needs of others. This to me is free will.

I view free will as a type of paradox. I think that people are free to think and make exactly the decisions that they will. This is given the circumstances of genetic disposition, point in space and time, environment, upbringing etc. As best I understand right now, the universe is deterministic. In spite of this humans have the ability to make decisions. The decisions made and the thoughts thought are an eventual product of the "initial conditions", assuming there was a beginning. I admit I have not looked much into Quantum Mechanics yet, and that may well impact my current best understanding. Really though, I seek to increase understanding, rather than to "pick a side".

This is the core of the issue; if there is an internal "you" to make decisions and exercise this will, it would have to be beyond the physical and people who do not believe that there is anything beyond the physical cannot believe in free will.

What never ceases to confuse me is why people who hold that opinion love discussing it so much. If there is no "you" to apply the knowledge or wisdom obtained from these discussions, then what is the point? Of course, some may say there is no point, that's just the way the cards fell, in which case, it is no fault of my own that I find this extreamly boreing.

Even assuming a disconnected"you" that "you" could only make decisions based on the assumptions of the consequences of those decisions. It is those assumed consequences that control the decision, not any sort of internal freedom to make them. It has nothing at all to do with spiritual matters.

You are having a problem with the definition, but that's not your fault- a rigorous and useful definition of free will does not exist. Most arguments for free will (at least that I've seen) come down to meaningless tautologies.

Honestly, I wouldn't even frame the discussion in the same terms as you would. What self is the essential self? And knowing that, what would we label free will? What makes that will free?


Well, the issue is that your original formulation seemed to me to be based upon the notion that you have a conscious, direct experience of free will.



After all, conditioning the unconscious does not entail that the unconscious develops in the manner that the conscious would desire it to. That kind of control demands knowledge, otherwise you have input into an unknown function to create an unknown output.



Well, intelligence does influence actions taken, however, I am not sure if there is a set definition of free will. There are currently 2 camps on the matter, the indeterminist camp and the compatibilist camp, both of which have differing sects of people with views on free will. I know Dan Dennett views intelligence as central to free will, but that does not mean everyone else does, nor does it mean that this meaningfully addresses the basic intuition that people are pulling from.

Not sure about the correlation with autism, there seem to be some who may be scientifically minded (as the correlation the article suggests) and yet believe in a form of free will.

Wanted to point out the skepticism towards Einstein's "diagnosis", but that's another issue I suppose.

I believe some of it may have to do with what type of philosophy few aspies are more inclined to given to the condition as well as life experiences, I mean it isn't surprising that past frustrations from whether autism or any other condition that pose few obstacles discourage people in believing in free will.

The empathy explanation seems odd, the reason below seems to make more sense.

Popeacock.