How can there be free-will when our Will is just a response to circumstances?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 

I agree with you. But it shouldn't be compared to arguing about the existence of god.

reply to post by vasaga
 

I haven't looked deep into the work of D.Dennet, but from what I've seen, I think his argument is flawed.
Will have to read his book on the subject first though.

Could you explain what false dilemma or other problems you see in the arguments by harris?
Would appreciate




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BcnDiamond
 

At the beginning, Harris proposes that the only two options are:

1) Either our will is determined by prior causes
2) Or they're the product of chance

He negates any other possibility. That's a false dichotomy because they are in fact not the only options. They are the only options when you assume that determinism is completely true regarding our minds and brains, but he never mentions that this assumption is there. That would be too easy to shoot his proposal down, since determinism is by default self-refuting.

Also.. He gives these free will assumptions:
1) We were free to behave differently than we did in the past
2) We are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions

He says they are untrue, but doesn't really explain why. All he says is, we live in a world of cause and effect. So basically, he assumes what I have described as scenario 1 in my prior posts, and then talks the whole time to conclude what he has assumed.

He then talks about the brain of a murderer and so on, saying that if we knew the whole composition of it, we would be able to determine all actions, which is basically the fallacy of composition. That's the main flaw of the whole argument actually, if you ignore all the other little fallacies.

His next argument was, "if you can't control your next thought, or where it arises, where is your freedom of will"? This negates the one who is watching the thoughts in the first place. And just because a thought arises does not mean that you have no will regarding it.

I can go on through the whole video, but seriously, people should ask questions for themselves instead of blindly accepting what he is saying, or even what I am saying.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
You can't answer the free will question without first solving the mind body problem.

If you believe we are entirely physical beings, then there is no freedom. Otherwise, freedom can originate from an external actor.

Is that actor free? It is relative:

The player of a game is free relative to an NPC, but is no more free than any of the other players. And so on... Ultimately, only the game creators (if they exist) are free. It's hard to say what role we play from inside the game (but the odds do not look good).



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Okay thank you for your thoughts.
I will have to think about this a bit more, but..

I don't think he says you could determine all actions if you knew the entire composition of a being.
What he is saying, if you and I where to interchange every aspect of our body, atom for atom, I would behave like you and vice versa. I don't see this as a fallacy of composition, unless there is a non physical part in our body which operates freely from the rest.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BcnDiamond
 


No problem. It's not often that I find someone here that is willing to consider different sides, so, I salute you.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


Read back over what you wrote and you'll see that you started it. I merely said that christians haven't got a lot to add to the freewill arguement as their addition is already well known and documented, as well as being a dead end with "god says so". For some reason you took that personally and attacked me. I wont repy again as i don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: added a bit



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
**ENOUGH**

This is a warning that any further T&C violations will result in a posting ban of at least 72 hrs and a review of your account by staff.

This is everybody's playground and nobody has any fun when people throw rocks across the yard.

!Tenth
ATS Mod



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by sidLives
 



Originally posted by sidLives
... I think this thread was about the question if FREEWILL exists or not, right?
I think it does, it existed before Christianity or any other religion, it's part of every life form.


How do you know this? Can you show us that the will of any being is free? And if you can, can you show that all of our actions or at least most of them are actually "FREE" will (taking action independent of life circumstances and learned behaviors) as opposed to just being "WILL" (a consequence of life - learned through life experiences and learned perspectives)?


Originally posted by sidLives

I'm sorry for the ones who have doubts about it.

let's try harder to
DENY IGNORANCE



It makes sense to doubt free-will based on the lack of evidence, just like it makes sense to doubt Zeus is in the sky making thunder based on the lack of evidence. Let us try harder to deny ignorance. I agree.


Greetings arpgme...
In my opinion, freewill is very simple to understand.

----- N A T U R A L . L A W -----

If we go to a biological level and try to understand what it means for other life forms, all we have to do is to observe other life forms around us.
If you give a closer look to two different individuals of any kind of animal (even plants), you will see that at some level they behave and act differently from each other.


They are not programed robots, they have all their own paths, wishes and want to live as they please , they are also on the pursue of their own happiness (even if we don't understand it).
Just as we humans do. The difference is that we humans, have ”to tame our differences” in a more “human” manner to avoid useless conflicts and let a door open to change what ever have to be changed for a better accomplishment of the human Pursue of Happiness.


For sure, most of us humans, don't have the “keen eye” to see such subtleness or are willing to try to understand other life forms (We can just see the price tags attached to it) and are quick to assume that freewill is only a human thing.
If one wants, he can see FREEWILL abounding everywhere, in every life form, but FREEWILL also gives everyone the right to believe in whatever one wants to believe.

Now, if we want to look to freewill at a human societal level, it could be seen as a tool to handle the differences between the individuals in a peaceful manner. Respect for the individual freedom. Protect the few against the many and the many against the few.
Do what you want, but don't harm or block the freewill of any body's else, don't impose your will on others, lead by example and take the consequences of yous actions...

Actually, it's just basic 2nd grade stuff...

----- N A T U R A L . L A W -----

I wish Bastiat's THE LAW, would be a compulsory read
for any elementary school world wide. So we could learn to live and respect each others differences in a more sane way.

That's what I mean with
DENY IGNORANCE
and divisive threads




edit on 14-12-2012 by sidLives because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by sidLives because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Circumstances are infinite.





top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join