Free Will an Illusion?
25 May 2010, 7:25 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
b9 wrote:
there is no such thing as free will, because no one designed the way their brains were built, and they did not design what happened to them in their life to craft their neuronal pathways.
since the matrix of neural connexions is created by non deliberate forces, and since that matrix of neurons seeks the path of least resistance, then one will always "choose" what is inevitably the least resistant course of operation.
if one had the manual of neural operations, then it is completely calculable how those neurons that are connected and meshed will react to any external situation.
you think you "chose" because you are happy with what executive inevitability your neurons performed when in a circumstance, and since they chose the path of least resistance, it is satisfactory to the consciousness because the least amount of dissatisfaction was experienced.
if the choice turns out to be incorrect (ie. an increased problem load) , then it is only then that dissatisfaction results. and that dissatisfaction is simply the result of the fact that the inevitable executive operation of the neurons was not molded for successful selection of the least resistant pathway pertinent to the circumstance due to inappropriate prior conditioning.
whatever i do not have much of an idea.
i am an automaton and i get by.
since the matrix of neural connexions is created by non deliberate forces, and since that matrix of neurons seeks the path of least resistance, then one will always "choose" what is inevitably the least resistant course of operation.
if one had the manual of neural operations, then it is completely calculable how those neurons that are connected and meshed will react to any external situation.
you think you "chose" because you are happy with what executive inevitability your neurons performed when in a circumstance, and since they chose the path of least resistance, it is satisfactory to the consciousness because the least amount of dissatisfaction was experienced.
if the choice turns out to be incorrect (ie. an increased problem load) , then it is only then that dissatisfaction results. and that dissatisfaction is simply the result of the fact that the inevitable executive operation of the neurons was not molded for successful selection of the least resistant pathway pertinent to the circumstance due to inappropriate prior conditioning.
whatever i do not have much of an idea.
i am an automaton and i get by.
The problem here is that in reality people do NOT always choose the path of least resistance. Take Ghandi, for example. The idea of passive resistance is itself a bold, uncomfortable (in)action when in fact, the most immediate satisfying path is to not bother the status quo. It takes an incredible power of the will to not only do such a thing, but to get people behind you in support. The choices they made brought the British Empire to its knees. If the biology of the brain is such that it takes the path of least resistance, how can such things happen? Apparently, assuming your idea is correct, there is something else within us that is able to supersede our own biology.
How can you judge what made Gandhi tick? His whole life was devoted to fighting what he felt was unjust. To lay back and watch his ideals be shattered is not the path of least resistance at all. But then again I cannot read Gandhi's mind any more than you.
Gandhi had this funny idea that love was a force that could manifest itself in a way not unlike military force--Satyagraha. Perhaps I oversimplified this by saying passive resistance, but the two do share some elements in common. Yes, he fought injustice, but he tried to fight it in the spirit of love rather than the spirit of raw defiance. Gandhi himself equated the force of truth (satya) with love. How do I know Gandhi's mind? Well, I can't in any absolute way, except that he himself described his ideas! The transmission of those ideas are no longer likely to change since. He said it, he described it.
It's hardly likely, because nearly every human being has this kind of reaction at some point in their lives, that his actions and those of his followers weren't initially carried out with some level of fear. By breaking the norms, they had to assume that some trouble was unavoidable, that perhaps even death itself awaited them. No sane, clear-thinking person I know of has ever claimed to be completely devoid of fear. I myself am not afraid of death, but I'm not exactly in a hurry to get there! See what I mean?
Same thing with Martin Luther King, Jr. in American Civil Rights. They avoided using violent means to achieve their goals, even when they were met with violence. Being threatened with beatings, torture, incarceration, and so on, one must consider whether criminal activity and its consequences are worth the change (which may or may not come) being evoked.
Getting back to the point, if free will does NOT exist, then the only other explanation for their behavior--whether Gandhi or King and all their followers--is that they are all delusional psychotics in serious need of re-education and treatment to bring their brain chemistry back in line with the current mainstream. What say you, Sand?
Oh, and that's not an answer for the greater question of free-will being a delusion. Another argument could be made that Gandhi and King were compelled to do what they did for some other reason besides their own will. I'm just saying that b9's response is problematic in that it reduces the will (whether free or not) to purely biological process. Those people did NOT face the path of least resistance, so that idea doesn't work, IMO.
You are substituting your concept of least resistance for theirs. Perhaps you would not choose to endure misery for your goals but they evidently would. The misery of surrendering to what they considered evil was obviously larger than what the evil could impose.
25 May 2010, 7:26 pm
NobelCynic wrote:
It might be a good idea to discuss the existence of human will without the customary adjective for though I do maintain that we do have a mind and will of our own, it is not exactly free; everybody and his brother is trying to influence our choices.
Most people do not question the fact that a machine, such as a computer, does not have a will of its own, though a few do taking the figures of speech about a computer “thinking” or “deciding” to seriously; yet all of its actions have been predetermined by its engineers, programmers and operators.
How can we be the same, particularly if one holds the opinion that we do not have a designer? A machine does not have any awareness of what it is or why it exists let alone discuss it with other machines. Why are we discussing this question, could it change anything? What would be the point of planning, or even thinking, if we do not have any choice?
Most people do not question the fact that a machine, such as a computer, does not have a will of its own, though a few do taking the figures of speech about a computer “thinking” or “deciding” to seriously; yet all of its actions have been predetermined by its engineers, programmers and operators.
How can we be the same, particularly if one holds the opinion that we do not have a designer? A machine does not have any awareness of what it is or why it exists let alone discuss it with other machines. Why are we discussing this question, could it change anything? What would be the point of planning, or even thinking, if we do not have any choice?
Even if we do not have a designer, one could still argue that all of our actions are predetermined by how our brains operate which became as they are due to process of evolution via natural selection. Decisions made by a computer are predetermined because the decision-making process of a computer is algorithmic. The decision-making process in a human brain could also be algorithmic and planning\thinking could be a part of that process.
25 May 2010, 7:32 pm
NobelCynic wrote:
It might be a good idea to discuss the existence of human will without the customary adjective for though I do maintain that we do have a mind and will of our own, it is not exactly free; everybody and his brother is trying to influence our choices.
Most people do not question the fact that a machine, such as a computer, does not have a will of its own, though a few do taking the figures of speech about a computer “thinking” or “deciding” to seriously; yet all of its actions have been predetermined by its engineers, programmers and operators.
How can we be the same, particularly if one holds the opinion that we do not have a designer? A machine does not have any awareness of what it is or why it exists let alone discuss it with other machines. Why are we discussing this question, could it change anything? What would be the point of planning, or even thinking, if we do not have any choice?
Most people do not question the fact that a machine, such as a computer, does not have a will of its own, though a few do taking the figures of speech about a computer “thinking” or “deciding” to seriously; yet all of its actions have been predetermined by its engineers, programmers and operators.
How can we be the same, particularly if one holds the opinion that we do not have a designer? A machine does not have any awareness of what it is or why it exists let alone discuss it with other machines. Why are we discussing this question, could it change anything? What would be the point of planning, or even thinking, if we do not have any choice?
Considering the endless discussions on this site alone, not to consider the whole field of philosophy, to assume that humans know why they exist and what they are is outrageously ludicrous.
26 May 2010, 1:04 am
Exclavius wrote:
And that is part of the problems we face daily. We HAVE to make real decisions, instead of passing those decisions off to some computerized "decision making process"
Regardless of how you arrive at the decision, you only came to that specific decision because of a chain of events and experiences which changed how you thought and felt about things leading up to that decision. Ultimately its your past experiences and thoughts which will determine any new decisions you make.
_________________
2101729 Kalantir-Bar-Orc-Mal-Cha escaped the dungeon
27 May 2010, 9:25 am
There are those who say that civilization is an illusion.
What if you woke up tomorrow as a primitive or free man?
A caveman says "me want, me take". A caveman says "I don't like you. I kill you"
Seriously. Why should I obey the "rules" of civilization?
Primitive man understood that he was going to die sooner or later so why not grab all you can while you can?
So why should I accept a low paying job with no future when I could become a gangster and be rolling in money and have "respect" from those around me?
fidelis
Veteran
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.
02 Jun 2010, 12:34 pm
I would say that free will is an illusion. The reason being that decisions have to be made. Our lives are one long sequence of decisions that we cannot avoid making. We do not have the option of not making the decision.
And I think our subconsious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
03 Jun 2010, 9:16 pm
Robdemanc wrote:
I would say that free will is an illusion. The reason being that decisions have to be made. Our lives are one long sequence of decisions that we cannot avoid making. We do not have the option of not making the decision.
I avoid making decisions all the time, even when environmental factors and other pressures are on me to make a decision of some kind. "Free Will" is the action of making a choice, not the fact that you are in the position of having to do so. People are free to consider all possible outcomes of making a given choice, and they can make that choice (whatever it is) based on perceived ramifications. Regardless, the right not to choose is still a choice. (There's a Rush tune suddenly looping in my head right now...).
A hypothetical situation: Let's say my house is on fire and my husband and one of my kids is trapped inside in different parts of the house. The fire department is still 20 minutes from arrival on-scene, and the house is almost fully involved, so I only have a minute or two to run inside. I can save only one of them. Whom would I save? The choices can be broken down as follows:
1. Save my husband
2. Save my child
3. Run inside and burn up with them (suicide) or,
4. Do nothing and watch the house burn down with both of them inside (Cowardice? Murder?).
The fact that we can choose any of the above is proof of Free Will. You just choose your best possible outcome depending on what's most important to you.
Quote:
And I think our subconsious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
How do you figure that your subconscious is responsible for decision-making when the act of making a decision is a Conscious act? Instinct plays a part in our decision-making process, yes, but we also make snap decisions based on available data at the time the decision must be made. Paper or plastic? Kill poor innocent trees or pollute the Earth with non-biodegradable petroleum products? It all depends on your personality, ideology, personal experiences from the past, emotional attachments and basic instinct. Sometimes, we make a decision when the outcomes aren't known and can't possibly be known. In this case, we make a choice by maximizing probabilities or plain old gut instinct. However you do it, you still have a choice, even if you choose not to make a choice at all. As long as "choice" is in play, you have Free Will. It's when all choices are taken away from you that you then lack free will. Free Will as an illusion is when you are misled by other people into thinking you have a choice when you really do not.
E333
04 Jun 2010, 10:02 am
Robdemanc wrote:
I would say that free will is an illusion. The reason being that decisions have to be made. Our lives are one long sequence of decisions that we cannot avoid making. We do not have the option of not making the decision.
And I think our subconscious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
And I think our subconscious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
Quote:
We do not have the option of not making the decision.
+1
Quote:
So we do not even play a part in choosing!
+1
Abstract
This is no different than for one to have the free will to choose to become , lets say 'a concert pianist'.
The world is full of self delusion and a lot of people do think " Oh , I could of been a contender- if I wanted to", or If I wanted to -" I could become a concert pianist".
If I just decided to take the lessons ,then.................. >>>>>>>>>>>
They didn't decide not to become a 'concert pianist '; they were incapable of deciding to become a concert pianist.
Their subconscious mind was incapable of the 'decision.'
I'm not saying it is beyond "our" grasp. Clearly it is not beyond a concert pianist's grasp. But if anyone could do it, I would disagree. I don't believe I could do it, if for no other reason than that I'm uninterested in it.
And I can't "decide" to be interested in it, any more than I can "decide" to dislike blueberries.
04 Jun 2010, 5:49 pm
Mdyar wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I would say that free will is an illusion. The reason being that decisions have to be made. Our lives are one long sequence of decisions that we cannot avoid making. We do not have the option of not making the decision.
And I think our subconscious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
And I think our subconscious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
Quote:
We do not have the option of not making the decision.
+1
Quote:
So we do not even play a part in choosing!
+1
Abstract
This is no different than for one to have the free will to choose to become , lets say 'a concert pianist'.
The world is full of self delusion and a lot of people do think " Oh , I could of been a contender- if I wanted to", or If I wanted to -" I could become a concert pianist".
If I just decided to take the lessons ,then.................. >>>>>>>>>>>
They didn't decide not to become a 'concert pianist '; they were incapable of deciding to become a concert pianist.
Their subconscious mind was incapable of the 'decision.'
I'm not saying it is beyond "our" grasp. Clearly it is not beyond a concert pianist's grasp. But if anyone could do it, I would disagree. I don't believe I could do it, if for no other reason than that I'm uninterested in it.
And I can't "decide" to be interested in it, any more than I can "decide" to dislike blueberries.
My argument is based on the idea of learning who we are in life. Our desires, preferences, likes, dislikes, motivations etc are either genetically predetermined or learned from our experience in life. Particularly during childhood we will learn most of what we would call our character or personality. Then all decisions in life are based on these. So saying you could not be a concert pianist because you don't want to is the same as: I don't want to become a concert pianist because I have not learnt or am otherwise equiped with the desire to become one. So because desire is absent we don't decide to become a concert pianist. But the desicion was made for us not by us.
04 Jun 2010, 5:55 pm
As it stands, I think a lot of the "free will" issue is about some ability to make decisions that physical reality does not already dictate to happen, that is to say that there is a mysterious being in our heads that does things. The problem is that there probably is no such magic man to do X, Y, and Z whether he "pleases", rather it is more likely that the our mental organization is set up in a manner where there is no apparent reduction of its language into a non-mental form. This does not mean that our magic man exists, and he probably doesn't, we just have a roadblock to recognizing that while the two languages seem different, they are more similar than we normally think.
04 Jun 2010, 5:56 pm
Element333 wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I would say that free will is an illusion. The reason being that decisions have to be made. Our lives are one long sequence of decisions that we cannot avoid making. We do not have the option of not making the decision.
I avoid making decisions all the time, even when environmental factors and other pressures are on me to make a decision of some kind. "Free Will" is the action of making a choice, not the fact that you are in the position of having to do so. People are free to consider all possible outcomes of making a given choice, and they can make that choice (whatever it is) based on perceived ramifications. Regardless, the right not to choose is still a choice. (There's a Rush tune suddenly looping in my head right now...).
A hypothetical situation: Let's say my house is on fire and my husband and one of my kids is trapped inside in different parts of the house. The fire department is still 20 minutes from arrival on-scene, and the house is almost fully involved, so I only have a minute or two to run inside. I can save only one of them. Whom would I save? The choices can be broken down as follows:
1. Save my husband
2. Save my child
3. Run inside and burn up with them (suicide) or,
4. Do nothing and watch the house burn down with both of them inside (Cowardice? Murder?).
The fact that we can choose any of the above is proof of Free Will. You just choose your best possible outcome depending on what's most important to you.
Quote:
And I think our subconsious is responsible for all decisions we make. So we do not even play a part in choosing!
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
I think free will is only worth considering when a person takes into account possible future outcomes of a decision they are about to make. But the weight they assign to each future scenario is decided by past experience.
How do you figure that your subconscious is responsible for decision-making when the act of making a decision is a Conscious act? Instinct plays a part in our decision-making process, yes, but we also make snap decisions based on available data at the time the decision must be made. Paper or plastic? Kill poor innocent trees or pollute the Earth with non-biodegradable petroleum products? It all depends on your personality, ideology, personal experiences from the past, emotional attachments and basic instinct. Sometimes, we make a decision when the outcomes aren't known and can't possibly be known. In this case, we make a choice by maximizing probabilities or plain old gut instinct. However you do it, you still have a choice, even if you choose not to make a choice at all. As long as "choice" is in play, you have Free Will. It's when all choices are taken away from you that you then lack free will. Free Will as an illusion is when you are misled by other people into thinking you have a choice when you really do not.
E333
My argument is based on the idea of learning who we are in life. Our desires, preferences, likes, dislikes, motivations etc are either genetically predetermined or learned from our experience in life. Particularly during childhood we will learn most of what we would call our character or personality. Then all decisions in life are based on these. So saying you could not be a concert pianist because you don't want to is the same as: I don't want to become a concert pianist because I have not learnt or am otherwise equiped with the desire to become one. So because desire is absent we don't decide to become a concert pianist. But the desicion was made for us not by us.
In your example I would say 99% of cases would go rushing into the house without thinking and go straight for the child. Even if that meant killing themselves in the process. If you have ever been in an emergency situation, or heard people talk about it, you should know that conscious thinking is suspended and we go into autodrive. Our hormones are making the decision. Our brains have received input that is so distressing that it has overruled our conscious brain and triggered instinct.
04 Jun 2010, 6:02 pm
How do you figure that your subconscious is responsible for decision-making when the act of making a decision is a Conscious
Free Will as an illusion is when you are misled by other people into thinking you have a choice when you really do not.
E333[/quote]
Sorry, yeah although we consciously make the decision, the process of making the decision is hidden from us. That is in the subconscious.
Free Will as an illusion is when you are misled into thinking you have a choice by a highly evolved brain.
05 Jun 2010, 11:13 am
E333 wrote:
How do you figure that your subconscious is responsible for decision-making when the act of making a decision is a Conscious
Free Will as an illusion is when you are misled by other people into thinking you have a choice when you really do not.
E333
Free Will as an illusion is when you are misled by other people into thinking you have a choice when you really do not.
E333
Robdemanc wrote:
Sorry, yeah although we consciously make the decision, the process of making the decision is hidden from us. That is in the subconscious.
Another words 'we become conscious that we have decided '.
Interesting thread
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Free Will or Otherwise |
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am |
| Gluten Free recipe ideas Needed |
10 Apr 2024, 10:03 am |
