Free Will - an illusion?

DwnWthVwls · 01-31-2015, 07:37 PM

Your avatar would be 10x hotter if it was the Bride dressed as Princess Leia. It would also be more Roxy.

RoxyRollah · 01-31-2015, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Your avatar would be 10x hotter if it was the Bride dressed as Princess Leia. It would also be more Roxy.

Sigh* I know.A break in routine is good for the soul.
I'll go back to the bride.Don't you trouble your pretty little head about it any more then you already have sugar.I got your 6 homie.

Xurtio · 02-01-2015, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Just exercising my free will.

Not giving my slightest to differing opinions? No well thought out counterarguments? What exactly are you looking for?

To me it's a really simple f*cking concept. You don't agree? Fine. What do you want me to do? Wax poetically for a few paragraphs about how simple a concept it is?

And exactly what is the debate? Are you debating the definition of free will? The concept of free will? The science of free will? The psychology of it? Spell it out for me.

We agree that it's simple, it's just not what we're talking about so its irrelevant... you're the only one causing a debate over the definition (i.e. arguing semantics) because you only understand the simple laymen definition of free will and don't seem to get the deeper discussion. Don't confuse us finding your posts ignorant and banal with us not getting your point.

Existence of free will is the debate. But there is no debate since everyone pretty much agrees, and those that don't haven't formulated a reasonable argument (that I noticed) We don't know if you actually agree or not since the question is already over your head.

You say spell it out for me, but when it was spelled out you just trivialized it as psychobabble. Kind of hard to put effort into willful ignorance.

Chula Vista · 02-01-2015, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

because you only understand the simple laymen definition of free will and don't seem to get the deeper discussion.

No.

I choose to accept the simple definition at face value and not muddy the waters with a bunch of BS metaphysics.

But ya'll have at it. Knock yourselves out.

Like I said, I'll debate topics that I deem worthy of debate. This is not one of them in my opinion. I'll stay out of the thread from here on out.

Nice insults BTW.

Xurtio · 02-01-2015, 10:24 AM

Insult or not, willful ignorance is a good fit. You chose to be antagonistic, where you could have just stayed out of it in the first place if you weren't interested or made a serious inquiry about things you don't understand. You're still trivializing things as "BS metaphysics" which is no different than plugging your ears and going "NA NA NA".

Anyway, it's not just metaphysics anymore; it's also physics and biology. The language of metaphysics is incorporated into the question because for a long time (thousands of years) we didn't have the equipment and analytical tools needed to peer into the brain, but we still talked about it. Now we do, so the evidence is interpreted on the variety of different ontological frameworks presented by people that were guessing before - we're stuck with those schemas - deal with it.

The dualist stance that is strongly associated with the claim that free will exists (i.e. an entity independent of the brain evades cause and effect). This is generally used to argue for the existence of a soul (mind and brain are two separate things) whereas most neuroscientists are monists (they believe mind is a product of brain) and accept that the brain obeys classical physics (which is deterministic) and physiological evidence supports these stances. Everybody has a philsophy - if you aren't aware of it, you're toting around unchecked philosophical baggage. Most scientists are empiricists.

Deterministic is formally defined from mathematics in this case. A system is deterministic if, for every state in the system, there is only one possible future state (i.e. the solutions are "unique"). We can also consider the stability of a system that is mostly deterministic with a small stochastic term and determine whether the stochasticity changes anything about the behavior of the system. Further, some stochastic models are just simplifications of complicated deterministic systems (statistical mechanics) and sensitivity to initial conditions (i.e. chaos) means that even deterministic systems can be unpredictible.

DwnWthVwls · 02-01-2015, 11:59 AM

Can I try a different approach Chula? How do you explain free will when you tell yourself you want to do something but you brain just prevents it from happening? Here's a simple example:

-When I was younger my friends and I would all go to this bridge where they jumped into the river.. The lowest spot was about 20' and I really wanted to jump in, I love swimming but I hate heights. I couldn't bring myself to jump even though I knew it was safe and watched people do it 100s of times.

How do you take your idea of the concept and make it fit this scenario?

Edit: Or how about not having the balls to ask out a girl you like?

WWWP · 02-02-2015, 10:59 AM

Xurtio · 02-02-2015, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Can I try a different approach Chula? How do you explain free will when you tell yourself you want to do something but you brain just prevents it from happening? Here's a simple example:

-When I was younger my friends and I would all go to this bridge where they jumped into the river.. The lowest spot was about 20' and I really wanted to jump in, I love swimming but I hate heights. I couldn't bring myself to jump even though I knew it was safe and watched people do it 100s of times.

How do you take your idea of the concept and make it fit this scenario?

Edit: Or how about not having the balls to ask out a girl you like?

But this still confuses the issues of (let's call it willpower) with will. Let's divide the process between two events. First the will is constructed, then the will is carried out. What you and Chula are talking about is carrying out the will, not the origin of will. That would have more to do with "willpower" - obviously Chula couldn't negate gravity and fly unaided just because he wanted to. And sometimes competing brain regions will make it harder for you to achieve your will (your flight or fight response takes over when you try to talk to a pretty girl). But these are all about what you do once you have the will, not the origin of the will itself.

"Free Will" implies that our will is freely constructed based on... nothing, basically. Just the whim of some spiritual entity that can act independently of the cause and effect events taking place in the brain. Behavioral determinists, like myself, or Sam Harris (to appeal to a known neuroscience authority) are saying that the evidence points to our will being constructed deterministically as a result of our biopsychosocial history.

DwnWthVwls · 02-02-2015, 08:24 PM

I'm on your side. I was trying to start with a simpler example and see how he uses his definition to explain it. I understand and agree with your previous posts.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 02-02-2015, 09:05 PM

honestly though that example isn't a good one for lack of free will. which is what i think x was saying

02-01-2015, 10:24 AM	#85 (permalink)
Xurtio Brain Licker Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,083	Insult or not, willful ignorance is a good fit. You chose to be antagonistic, where you could have just stayed out of it in the first place if you weren't interested or made a serious inquiry about things you don't understand. You're still trivializing things as "BS metaphysics" which is no different than plugging your ears and going "NA NA NA". Anyway, it's not just metaphysics anymore; it's also physics and biology. The language of metaphysics is incorporated into the question because for a long time (thousands of years) we didn't have the equipment and analytical tools needed to peer into the brain, but we still talked about it. Now we do, so the evidence is interpreted on the variety of different ontological frameworks presented by people that were guessing before - we're stuck with those schemas - deal with it. The dualist stance that is strongly associated with the claim that free will exists (i.e. an entity independent of the brain evades cause and effect). This is generally used to argue for the existence of a soul (mind and brain are two separate things) whereas most neuroscientists are monists (they believe mind is a product of brain) and accept that the brain obeys classical physics (which is deterministic) and physiological evidence supports these stances. Everybody has a philsophy - if you aren't aware of it, you're toting around unchecked philosophical baggage. Most scientists are empiricists. Deterministic is formally defined from mathematics in this case. A system is deterministic if, for every state in the system, there is only one possible future state (i.e. the solutions are "unique"). We can also consider the stability of a system that is mostly deterministic with a small stochastic term and determine whether the stochasticity changes anything about the behavior of the system. Further, some stochastic models are just simplifications of complicated deterministic systems (statistical mechanics) and sensitivity to initial conditions (i.e. chaos) means that even deterministic systems can be unpredictible. __________________ H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

02-02-2015, 10:59 AM	#87 (permalink)
WWWP county fair energy Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,775

02-02-2015, 09:05 PM	#90 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	honestly though that example isn't a good one for lack of free will. which is what i think x was saying