Materialism and Consciousness.

[CartesianFart]

I get the definitions, it's just that neither accurately discribes reality.

That is a broad statement. over 2,500 years of Philosophy is evaporated into thin air by a guy named,Perfection.Which in fact deny by saying that most of them are wrong without any references to them.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well if my thought processes are governed by physical phenomena instead of a dualistic soul then isn't it true that my "choices" are merely the result of the collective action of my constitutuents and not the result of some "free will"?

However, "Will" like "Life" affects its environment to continue. Once it exists, then it continues striving to exist. It's like a self-feeding reaction.

Mehn, doesn't matter ... although I wonder if we've helped CG by showing that we don't really have any solutions.

 

[cgannon64]

I'm only going to respond to snippets, since this thread exploded...

Quantum mechanics=free will.

Not at all. Random behavior does not equal freely chosen behavior. The words "will" and "choice" indicate that randomness does not play a factor.

While I agree, that's my point of view. There are self consistent points of view combining materialism and free will. Mind body dualism, jungianism, etc. The key there is that consciousness is a manifestation of our neural net (or collecive unconscious etc.) and that enables free will. Personally, I don't see the need for free will of the type you seem to be talking about, but many other wise men did.

I'd love some elaborations, because I haven't come across, nor can I even conceive of, a doctrine compatible with pure science that allows for free will.

Again B does not follow from A here. Nothing must be abandoned on the alter of free will, consider our subjective nature.

I don't know about you, but I go through every waking moment assuming that I am doing - controlling - what I do. Throw that out the window, and I need to reassess the entire way I approach my life.

Depends on what you mean by deeper connection, I know love and it is a very deep connection. It could not be deeper. There is a drive to love everyone, regardless of Christianity or free will. There are other drives too of course.

I do not mean that this drive wouldn't exist, I mean that it would lose its virtue. Without free will the ideas of virtue, guilt, etc. must be thrown out - ideas that are closely linked to love in the Christian view.

We again enter the semantic world here. I would argue that you feel that knowledge of truth would make you happy, or you would not want it. Many people find happiness through self depravation, or even masochism. The quest of knowledge always involves some of that.

We disagree then. You seem to think that all drives are subsets of the drive to happiness: I think there is a definite drive for truth.

Your will is "free" when your actions are a result of your own desires. A person making you do something through coercion is a violation of this, not your desires being the result of neural activity. Makes more sense to me, and it has the added bonus of actually making "free will" a good thing, by golly.

This definition seems more political than philosophical to me, and not exactly useful in a philosophical debate.

If I am free when I am acting in accordance with my desires, how is that even free? I am free in the sense that no other person is controlling me - but my desires are. So, I'm either a slave to my desires or another person: that's hardly freedom.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wow ... that was a fast bit of feedback!

Edit:

So, to you, Free Will ISN'T the ability to do what you want?

 

[CartesianFart]

If I am free when I am acting in accordance with my desires, how is that even free? I am free in the sense that no other person is controlling me - but my desires are. So, I'm either a slave to my desires or another person: that's hardly freedom.

Isn't that somewhat closely akin to Arthur Schopenaur "Will and Representation"?Man, you are late on that quote.

 

[cgannon64]

Was it? (in response to El Machinae)

But anyway, responding to a post I see that you just made: Did you read the exercept from the book? I think it addresses your point about will, and I think it pretty definitively states that it's not free. The rules are always changing themselves, but in the end, they're still guided by other, unchangable rules.

Is't that somewhat closely akin to Arthur Schopenaur?Man, you are late on that quote.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're blaming me for making an argument that's already been made historically... that's unfair.

 

[Perfection]

That's your opinion and frankly I'm kind of glad it isn't shared by the great philosophers and thinkers of our time, they saw no need to poo poo the ideas, the fact that you do is entirely your look out

Well, I guess they weren't that great.

That is a broad statement. over 2,500 years of Philosophy is evaporated into thin air by a guy named,Perfection.Which in fact deny by saying that most of them are wrong without any references to them.

They don't call me Perfection for nothin'.

Not at all. Random behavior does not equal freely chosen behavior. The words "will" and "choice" indicate that randomness does not play a factor.

Bingo!

If I am free when I am acting in accordance with my desires, how is that even free? I am free in the sense that no other person is controlling me - but my desires are. So, I'm either a slave to my desires or another person: that's hardly freedom.

Yeah, but that's how it is, we're all slaves to our desires.

 

[WillJ]

This definition seems more political than philosophical to me, and not exactly useful in a philosophical debate.

Not at all.

If I am free when I am acting in accordance with my desires, how is that even free? I am free in the sense that no other person is controlling me - but my desires are. So, I'm either a slave to my desires or another person: that's hardly freedom.

"Slave to your desires"? How in the world does having desires make you a slave? Freedom has to do with being able to act on your desires---slavery is bad precisely because you have desires that you can't act on. If you have no desires, freedom is irrelevant and you might as well not exist.

 

[CartesianFart]

Was it?

But anyway, responding to a post I see that you just made: Did you read the exercept from the book? I think it addresses your point about will, and I think it pretty definitively states that it's not free. The rules are always changing themselves, but in the end, they're still guided by other, unchangable rules.

Why dont you go and convert yourself to 'Buddhism',i am sure they are accepting applications.

 

[cgannon64]

"Slave to your desires"? How in the world does having desires make you a slave? Freedom has to do with being able to act on your desires---slavery is bad precisely because you have desires that you can't act on. If you have no desires, freedom is irrelevant and you might as well not exist.

It sounds like you're taking your ax to a strawman here. I did not say having desires makes you a slave - I said always having to obey them does. I did not say freedom is the lack of desires - I did not say anything to that effect. I would say, however, that freedom is the ability to not follow your desires, to choose to disobey your instinct.

Is this possible, in your view? If it's not: how are we free?

 

[El_Machinae]

CG: but we have competing desires - short-term and long-term. And then we choose which have priority and exercise restraint in one area or another.

A heroin addict seems to have less Free Will than a non-addict. A drunk person seems to have less Free Will than a non-drunk. The chemicals do matter ...

 

[WillJ]

It sounds like you're taking your ax to a strawman here. I did not say having desires makes you a slave - I said always having to obey them does. I did not say freedom is the lack of desires - I did not say anything to that effect. I would say, however, that freedom is the ability to not follow your desires, to choose to disobey your instinct.

Is this possible, in your view? If it's not: how are we free?

Um, if you act contrary to your desires, how are they your desires?

Keep in mind I don't mean "desires" solely in some sort of a primal sense. Yes, you can "desire" to have wild sex, but you can also "desire" to worship God or donate to charity or better the scientific community.

No, it's not possible to act contrary to your desires, due to the definition of "desire." We're still free because freedom is the ability to act on your desires, not act contrary to them (which, again, makes no sense).

 

[cgannon64]

CG: but we have competing desires - short-term and long-term. And then we choose which have priority and exercise restraint in one area or another.

Do we? Why wouldn't there be a superior set of desires that do that?

A heroin addict seems to have less Free Will than a non-addict. A drunk person seems to have less Free Will than a non-drunk. The chemicals do matter ...

Undoubtedly. The Catholic Church's argument against drunkenness is that it limits free will. (The hidden catch is that, hey, if you still have your free will and you're drunk, you're good. I think Thomas Aquinas approved of drunkenness to the point of "merriment." )

 

[Birdjaguar]

That is a broad statement. over 2,500 years of Philosophy is evaporated into thin air by a guy named,Perfection.Which in fact deny by saying that most of them are wrong without any references to them.

Philosophy has always been about thin air. Perfection looks at the world as it is and not as a logical construct.

 

[cgannon64]

No, it's not possible to act contrary to your desires, due to the definition of "desire." We're still free because freedom is the ability to act on your desires, not act contrary to them (which, again, makes no sense).

This is not freedom. Calling this "free will" only damages the idea...

Perhaps acting contrary to desires was the wrong phrase. How about this: Can you control your desires? If not, you are not free.

 

[El_Machinae]

But then you're desiring to control your desires .....

Edit: but I sure feel that I have. I've taken drink to boost confidence and reduce shyness ...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, but that's how it is, we're all slaves to our desires.

And I would add, that all desires emminate from our longing for unity and understanding.

 

[cgannon64]

Don't forget that the Catholic Church acknowledges it is possible to be drunk and in full control of your free will. At one point do you lose it? Find out for yourself.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay, I've got a good 'hint' of Free Will.

If we accept that Life takes steps to continue its existence, then a willful action against life seems to be contrary to life.

Suicide leaps out. Putting a pistol in your mouth because you can't see the world getting better ... Jumping on a grenade to save your buddies and your country ... lighting yourself on fire to protest the Chinese government.

All of these are actions violate the premise that Life and Free Will take active steps to continue themselves

 

[CartesianFart]

Philosophy has always been about thin air.

Thin air.hmmm...Sounds like the Aristophanes "Clouds"...hmmm

Perfection looks at the world as it is and not as a logical construct.

So we have to look at the world as it by Perfection precept as what it is?

Logical constructions and Perfection/Birdjaquar hmm...i think i will choose the former.