ITT: We Discuss Whether free Will exists

[Amanda44]

More 'on topic':
"It's more important to think that you have a free will, than knowing if you do or not." Me, according to Google.

This ^^ - especially when it comes to younger people, partly why I never returned to the discussion. Studies carried out with a varied selection of participants to show that the brain works independently had an adverse effect on the younger test subjects, becoming aware that free will is (maybe, lol) an illusion, resulted in an increase amongst them in anti-social behaviour.

We have enough anti-social behaviour here without adding to it -

[jcm2214]

More 'on topic':
"It's more important to think that you have a free will, than knowing if you do or not." Me, according to Google.

This ^^ - especially when it comes to younger people, partly why I never returned to the discussion. Studies carried out with a varied selection of participants to show that the brain works independently had an adverse effect on the younger test subjects, becoming aware that free will is (maybe, lol) an illusion, resulted in an increase amongst them in anti-social behaviour.

We have enough anti-social behaviour here without adding to it -

I've found that anti-social behavior gives no meaning to a meaningless existence than standard life and death practices do.

[MagicManICT]

I think he's saying we're all "mentally ill" and society is fucked up.

There's too many ways to interpret words, that shows the constraints of language.

Bob Dole should understand the fallibility of a quote. Bob Dole should know how to manipulate language to be perceived by others in his own way. This proves that free will is a fleeting idea only* able to be exercised by the few.

No, Huxley is not saying we are all mentally ill, but that the vast majority of that population teeters on that edge of functional normality and being the "crazy." I'm one of the crazies and have no qualms admitting it.

For better understanding of Huxley, go beyond the quote. The quote's only purpose is as a teaser to bring out a general theme or statement. When used well, it sums up everything said in a long discussion without tiring a reader not invested in the overall thought process. When used poorly, it doesn't say much at best, and at worst misleads and even outright lies. Truth is: nearly 50% of the population of the world suffers mental illness. Many are able to cope. Some choose to not cope, others can't even try.

As far as free will goes, for the uninitiated in philosophy, best is to get the commentary track on The Matrix from Dr. Cornell West and Ken Wilber. These movies go very deep into the history of philosophy, and those that don't know won't really see the depth the movies present. Warning: you're life will never be the same and you may become very depressed.

For the initiated: Free will is what it is--something one always chooses to exercise. Whether you willingly control your thoughts or actions or decide to just "follow" your emotions and lusts, you have still decided. I think Isaac Asimov summed up predestination very well in the "Foundation" novels. Most people choose not to exercise free will and thus society can be reliably predicted along probabilistic lines (as long as we have the maths and intelligence to figure out the equations), but that individuals willing to exercise their free will can cause massive ripples in these equations. (Note: one can, in theory, even predict this behavior if understanding of physics and will can go deep enough, but I don't think anyone of this plane of existence will ever grasp it.)

The problem comes in the human need to be social, which means we must compromise our wills. Do we compromise to remain a part of the pack, (try to) become a decision maker and lead, or just drop out of said rat race?

to note at a much earlier post: philosophy is the father of all science and is the realm of logic and reasoning, and is the reason why, to this day, we still call people a "Doctor of Philosophy". Without the study of thought and reason, we have no science. Thank you Aristotle and Plato amongst other great Ancient Greeks, for making our modern society possible. I just get extremely annoyed when people forget this basic fact. Yes, philosophical discussion has gone into some really weird areas, but hasn't science done the same? (Alchemy, anyone? Let's not forget the modern fringe sciences, too.) Religion, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with this unless you want to bury your head in the sand. (Note: I do consider myself Christian, but refuse to follow any dogma blindly.) Yes, this is a completely philosophical question and is easily answered by philosophy (or not depending on who you decide to read and follow). I thought philosophy had answered it centuries ago, but then, not everyone is ready to delve into questions that can cause such distress. One of my favorite passages comes from the Bible: let he who seeks find. To get "a better" version of this quote, the Nag Hamadi codices, the Gospel of Thomas: "Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]" "

Also, if you guys really want to discuss this on a philosophical level, I can go dig out some of my old textbooks and find a lot of good articles on the Internet. i fear I've forgotten more than I can recall to be really useful for, though. Otherwise... /shrug

TIL logic (use of reason) = intuition (lack of reason). Okie dokie.

logic and intuition can go hand in hand, however, one should never be relied upon over the other, in my opinion. Many people's "intuition" defies logic, which is why so many people confuse the two. Intuition is trained over ones life just like any other skill. The question is how much one relies on it verses proper analysis of a situation.

More 'on topic':
"It's more important to think that you have a free will, than knowing if you do or not." Me, according to Google.

This ^^ - especially when it comes to younger people, partly why I never returned to the discussion. Studies carried out with a varied selection of participants to show that the brain works independently had an adverse effect on the younger test subjects, becoming aware that free will is (maybe, lol) an illusion, resulted in an increase amongst them in anti-social behaviour.

There's always a downside to psychological experimentation as it will always require active participants at some point that can cause adverse effects on them. I refused to be a participant in any of the graduate studies when I first took Psychology my freshman year in college because I had already been under psychiatric care. I flunked the class. A few years later, the university dropped the provision (not by any protest of mine, though... just better judgement).

edit: how did I ever miss this discussion until now...

*edit: edited for clarity of message. I thought I proofread it and missed a couple minor details that kind of skewed what I was meaning.

[mvgulik]

Now there is a post that's interesting to read.

* Makes "Matrix, West, Wilber" note, and switches back to trying to digest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic and http://www.maartensz.org/logic/invalid_reasoning.htm *

[MagicManICT]

I like that maartensz site paper. My favorite quote from there:

if among cannibals, do as the cannibals do - is often safe and helps one survive, and part of the reason any human society survives is the mutual help its members give one another, that tends to be based on perceived likeness and conformism.

All well and good until you become the dinner, which, really, just says so much about society and the psychological cannibalism that can go on.

[mvgulik]

Yep.

[jorb]

The question of the freedom of the will is ultimately a metaphysical one, and as such beyond the realm of physical science proper. It can be observed, however, that all human deliberative discourse -- and indeed all human cognitive structure überhaupt -- rests fundamentally on the assumptive premise that a participating subject is -- indeed -- free to accept or reject propositions presented to them according to personal judgment, and without any necessary regard given to their form, coherence, content, or otherwise disposition. As such, any attempt to "disprove" -- or even simply to dispute -- the freedom of the will, must rest on a fallacy from antecedent concepts, as the very attempt itself must rest on an assumption that its subjects are free to accept or reject it. Freedom of will is thus implicit in all human experience -- certainly the physical sciences themselves -- and any attempt to deny it thus rests on the rather shaky foundation of assuming the opposite of what is being proposed. The experience of freedom of will is simply a primary experience -- much like consciousness itself -- and no secondary or derived experience can thus be fruitfully leveled against it.

The argument from sociology is simply retarded, as most arguments from sociology tend to be. The fact that I am not over the course of my life-time presented with an exhaustive list of propositions (i.e. the ideas I am exposed to are determined to a large extent by my context, and perhaps my own genius to the extent that I have one) quite obviously has no bearing on the metaphysical fact that I am nevertheless internally free to accept or reject them. This has bearing upon the general confusion introduced to western philosophy by "enlightenment" reductionism, especially as concerns matters of human liberty meaningfully understood, but I digress.

More importantly, true catholic religion teaches that freedom of will is necessary for the salvific promise, in so far as you are not compelled by external forces or any necessity to accept (or reject!) Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and -- speaking with Aquinas -- philosophy everywhere is always the handmaiden of theology.

[overtyped]

The question of the freedom of the will is ultimately a metaphysical one, and as such beyond the realm of physical science proper. It can be observed, however, that all human deliberative discourse -- and indeed all human cognitive structure überhaupt -- rests fundamentally on the assumptive premise that a participating subject is -- indeed -- free to accept or reject propositions presented to them according to personal judgment, and without any necessary regard given to their form, coherence, content, or otherwise disposition. As such, any attempt to "disprove" -- or even simply to dispute -- the freedom of the will, must rest on a fallacy from antecedent concepts, as the very attempt itself must rest on an assumption that its subjects are free to accept or reject it. Freedom of will is thus implicit in all human experience -- certainly the physical sciences themselves -- and any attempt to deny it thus rests on the rather shaky foundation of assuming the opposite of what is being proposed. The experience of freedom of will is simply a primary experience -- much like consciousness itself -- and no secondary or derived experience can thus be fruitfully leveled against it.

The argument from sociology is simply retarded, as most arguments from sociology tend to be. The fact that I am not over the course of my life-time presented with an exhaustive list of propositions (i.e. the ideas I am exposed to are determined to a large extent by my context, and perhaps my own genius to the extent that I have one) quite obviously has no bearing on the metaphysical fact that I am nevertheless internally free to accept or reject them. This has bearing upon the general confusion introduced to western philosophy by "enlightenment" reductionism, especially as concerns matters of human liberty meaningfully understood, but I digress.

More importantly, true catholic religion teaches that freedom of will is necessary for the salvific promise, in so far as you are not compelled by external forces or any necessity to accept (or reject!) Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and -- speaking with Aquinas -- philosophy everywhere is always the handmaiden of theology.

Write a novel already.

[Satan_from_Brodgar]

Humans are not real.

We Perceive we are real. Our actions are only real because of Perception.

So free will exists in our Perception.

Nothing exists outside of our Perception.

As long as we are "humans of today", free will exist.

When humans die out, so will our Perception.

[MagicManICT]

Not to derail, but...

sociology is simply retarded

Quote of the year!

Otherwise, excellent post, jorb.

More importantly, true catholic religion teaches that freedom of will is necessary for the salvific promise, in so far as you are not compelled by external forces or any necessity to accept (or reject!) Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and -- speaking with Aquinas -- philosophy everywhere is always the handmaiden of theology.

And yet the Roman Catholics also teach predesitination. All things were predetermined by God, thus we really don't have a choice in the matter. Things like this are why I gave up organized religion. (Or maybe I'm getting some of my old teachings confused... been too long since I dug into details.)