Which guys?

Probably me and Tyral... possibly Bovinity also, since we're the ones who have publically stated we have no empathy for these victims.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

On the Free Will subject, let me ask a different type of question. Was it free will when the Wright Brothers were successful in their first flight was it nature or nurture that led them to make their plane? Humans, without assistance, can not fly and for years before the Wright Brothers all other attempts at flight were failures.

Like Van said, it depends!

But on the topic of the lazy "welfare queens" I think they're great, since clearly they are absolutely incapable of getting off the couch and getting a job due to their nature/nuture and so I cannot fault them for sitting around and leeching free money.

I could tell them to stop watching TV and get a job, but what would I be doing? I'd be an inconsiderate ass for telling someone to defy their nature. Indeed, it'd be like me telling a cripple to just get up and walk!! What a jerk I'd be.

PS: This post was totally serious.

nature or nurture has no merit in that statement beyond "what made them decide to try to make a plane" -- it has nothing to do with their success in their endeavor, except possibly to make them soldier on in the face of ridicule and failure.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Rugen described exactly what I was pointing out. There's nothing supernatural in my argument. In fact, if my argument is true, then it implies quite strongly that supernatural interaction with humanity is superfluous at best.

Yes, but Rugen said:



Which does NOT say that you are helpless to do anything. You seem to be forgetting that - while your brain does process everything through your memories and experience - that once it has done so you still have another part of your brain with which you make a conscious choice on how to act.

Your stance on it seems entirely too rigid, implying that we are indeed helpless before our collection of experiences.

The choice is based entirely on your view of reality. It is not necessarily a "choice" at all, even if it seems to be so from your perspective.

If the logic holds true, then we ARE helpless before our collection of experiences, combined with whatever we gain from our parents' genes.

If you find this to be incorrect, then I ask you to provide an argument that refutes it.

The problem with your assertion is that by your definition there is no situation where it does not have a true result. Regardless of what experiences someone has and regardless of how they react, you'll assert that they were just destined to do so.

Even if someone reacts in different ways to multiple occurrences of the same situation, you'll still be able to just say that it's a true result.

It seems odd for a Quaker to be arguing predestination. Are you sure you're not a Calvinist?

Maybe Fribs is just confusing "Predisposition" and "Predestinaton".

Or maybe, as I said in another thread, I no longer consider myself a Christian, because I'm finding the evidence for the existance of that kind of deity to be underwhelming as I get older. While people pointing out that I am their "best example" of a good Christian is flattering, it's a little depressing that someone with such severe doubts turns out to be that guy for some of you.

Many of you don't seem to understand my general personality, either. I'm perfectly happy arguing a position merely for the exercise in arguing it, whether or not it matches my personal conviction. In this case, the thought occurred to me that it seems logically incoherant to call our choices "free will" if at the same time we hold that the essence of ourselves is the sum of our experiences and our "nature." Since I had never really thought about it that way before, I presented it here. I'd rather think otherwise, so I was hoping to see an argument that would logically refute it. Sadly, nothing has been presented.

I'll continue with it, in a different way, and in a way that Bovinity implied in a previous post. In a sense, it's a question where even if what I supposed is true, it makes no practical difference in our day to day lives. In other words, even if our free will is an illusion due to the factors I outlined earlier, it may as well be free will since it is the total sum of our existence.

That argument mirrors another one in philosophy. People sometimes argue that all of our reality is a complete illusion-- that perhaps the universe and everything in it is an illusion. Our minds create our reality, and there's no real way to prove that our realities match. My color red, for example, could be entirely different in mind than yours. Even if yours is the same, you yourself could be some kind of construct in my mind. Since we only experience the universe through our senses, how do we know it is accurate? Others have said what I said in the previous paragraph-- since we cannot determine whether or not the universe is an illusion, why not just act as though it isn't? What's the objective difference between a completely convincing illusion and the real thing? Perhaps nothing.

The same can be said for free will, even if my argument is correct. What is the objective difference between a completely convincing illusion of free will and the real thing? Perhaps nothing.

See-- that would have been an example of an argument that would make logical sense, even if not completely (I won't pretend I'm some brilliant philosopher, and besides I'm pretty sure almost all of this ground has been covered by other great thinkers in much more detail than I).

Now those things said, here's other responses to replies that I did get, that I think still miss the point.

1) I am STILL not saying that there is some kind of entity that predetermines your actions. This implies some kind of deity, and it is not necessary at all to understand the argument. I'm simply saying that we can only react to our given stimulus (the universe around us and within us), and that our decisions are a result of the collective pressure of that stimulus. Without that stimulus we could make no decisions, as we would have no instincts, no basis for rational or even irrational thought, and no reason to act within a universe of nothingness. It's the universe around us and in us that creates the need to act, and we act according to how the universe dictates.

2) All this doesn't imply "simplicity" as Bovinity keeps saying. The various stimuli around us and within us is staggering in complexity and number-- this is why it is nearly impossible for us to even predict whether a 3 year old will get up in the next 30 seconds or not, for example. This is part of what makes the illusion of free will so convincing.

3) The practical application of this is certainly not, "I should allow anyone to do anything because it doesn't matter." Part of the universe around and within us dictates that I have a desire to be happy, to live in an ordered universe, and to protect and propagate my species. Where those drives came from I don't know, but they create in me the desire to make choices that create consequences for those that threaten these other base desires. This means when someone murders my father, I get angry and I look for restitution. I try to create a universe where others would not end up making these types of decisions. Unfortunately since the inputs that create decisions are so complex as I stated earlier, it's nearly impossible for me to create a universe around me where this is guaranteed not to happen.

In short, Bovinity especially, these musings about the nature of the universe do not need to threaten your view of life. If you read my words for what they are and not what you think they are, you would see that this is far from advocating an anarchist world where we have no consequences for our actions.

If any of you read all of this... you're insane! What crazy part of the universe convinced you it was worth it? :p

Right, but what I'm getting at is that when confronted with a choice all those experiences and stimuli may color your view and predispose you toward a certain action....but at that final, singluar point in time where you must act, you still have the ability to choose.

In your example here where someone reacts differently to the same stimulus, it would be incredibly hard to test without erasing their memory somehow, AND leaving no room for additional environmental interference in between testings. Say there are 3 paths in a maze. The person may well pick the left side one day for no other reason than they were feeling moody that particular day, and in moody situations the person picks a path that is contrary to the normal path they would take. It would be very difficult to erase all external stimulae.

*Something* caused the neural firing in their brain to pick a particular path at a particular point in time. Decisions have to be made based on something. Conscious thought requires it. If the brain COMPLETELY randomly thought of different things, then maybe it would be possible, but we know that's not the case. The brain follows a relatively linear thought process. It cannot jump from one thing to another without a direct line of thought process to lead it there. Things like memory triggers that remind you of something that seem random, for example, are actually brought about by something in your environment that triggered the same thoughts that were associated with your memory.

Example: Yesterday, you were told that you needed to bring a paper in for class. While you were told that, you were staring at an oddly shaped potted plant next to the window. The next day, you're going about your things when pass by a plant in your house. It's not oddly shaped or anything - just a normal plant, but it's enough to lead your thoughts to the paper. Other simpler memories can be traced back by simple deduction. "What was I talking about just a few moments ago?" is a common phrase. Go down the line of what led a conversation from one thing to another, and the same thought process that your brain goes through is at play there.



To me the more religious take on it is what Bzalthek described - we are all little unique snowflakes that make "FREEEEEE" decisions. It would certainly be the feel-good approach, and probably allow more room for morality and the concept of going to heaven or hell for your deeds or misdeeds. People hate to feel as if they aren't in control.

But it appears to me to be even less religious because it suggests that all action is determined by a logical and sequential line of events. Free will - assuming we describe it something akin to your example, where the same stimulus produces a different result each time - suggests a certain amount of randomness. With the exception of quantum mechanics(which arguably we still don't know whether or not it is indeed completely random, or if additional mechanics we don't know about are actually at play), the natural world mostly follows some kind of order. Over time science has been able to rule out the "randomness" of an increasing number of situations, and we're at a point now where really very few things(if any, IMO) can be described as truly random.

In short, just because a neuron decided to take one particular path doesn't mean you've made a completely free will decision.

Since it will never be, practically speaking, possible to identically replicate any experience you will ever have, debating the difference between the illusion of free will and actual free will is splitting hairs.

Sure, you're going to decide how to react to any stimulus based on a combination of nature and nurture. Nature is "you" though, and you're essentially freely deciding based on who you are. It seems fairly obvious to me that I would make my decisions based on who I am, and I don't really feel like that infringes on my "free will" in the slightest.

I think the point you're missing is self-defining limitations. Krby's example of the Wright brothers is a perfect one. They believed that flight was possible so they pursued it. In many cases people don't believe that some specific thing is possible so they create their own limitations to free will. The most common example of this (that I'm not entirely sure I buy) is inner city youths who believe, because of the evidence in front of them, that the only routes to success from their life are sports or illegal acts. They don't buy into anything that they are presented with via the media because the media is controlled by the 'man' or because their parents have done a very poor job of giving them the freedom to believe they are capable.

I'm a firm believer in free will but also think that free will can be narrowed by self-doubt to the point that it seems to be destiny.

But I could just as easily say that the Wright Brothers believed it was possible because the combination of their innate personality traits and an environment that allowed it to happen created that belief.

Prove it.

_________________

Seriously? The determinism/free will debate is thousands of years old and (like most classic philosophical issues) unresolved. If you want to hear cogent arguments on either side of the debate, go take philosophy 101 at your local community college. Or just read this comic, and "let's never talk about it again!"

It will be a long time or never for it to be proven, but that's not reason enough to ignore evidence for it. That's like my pointing out there's plenty of evidence for black holes existing, but your insisting on proof that they really exist. Insert any other theory here. By and large nature has shown it has a distinct order for things, and very little randomness plays a part. I can drop a ball 50,000 times and it will still land in nearly the same spot at nearly the same speed(with variance explained by little things like friction and inconsistent movement).

The way I see it, there are two possible cases for the problem of different responses to the same stimulus at the same point in time. For free will to exist, there needs to be something that would MAKE neural firings random. That functionality alone would be something bordering on the supernatural, and would need to be explained. And if the case exists that they ARE random, then are you really making the choice at all anyway? If they are NOT random, then you're choosing the exact same response to the exact same stimulus every time the experiment is done - because the exact same thought process would occur within your brain to arrive at the exact same decision.



Genetics alone is not enough to explain what I described above. Being that you are who you are doesn't imply that you're choosing freely, because you were merely born into it.



Eh, we talk about things all the time on here with less-than-ideal debate foregrounds, and innumerable topics that probably aren't any less worth discussing than this.

This topic in particular, however, is actually a good counterpoint to the comic. The original point in this regard was how much a person can be affected by being raised in a particular situation where they might not possess the will or even self-appreciation/confidence to resist abuse. This further leads to questions of nature/nurture and whether some responsibility also lies outside of the person in question. The contention made by determinism would be - absolutely. Though it may be an extreme example of which a person could argue for responsibility outside the individual for an individual's actions, it still serves us well in illustrating that point rather starkly. It's a pretty hard one to ignore as well if you really want to get to the bottom of the nature/nurture debate, IMO.

I guess if the simple point that people may not have free will didn't drive some people bonkers, it wouldn't be a big enough deal to suggest that we "never talk about it again!".

Though really even without that the comic makes a rather silly point in general. By that standard, we should never talk about anything philosophical that has no application in the real world. Which also doesn't make much sense, since most of the lessons philosophy teaches a person are by proxy - i.e. in this case, one may come to realize that more than just a person in question can take partial responsibility for the end result of that person's character.

lol. You just don't understand. This isn't science; it's philosophy.

I've provided a logical "proof" of this concept already. I await a rebuttal.

I wouldn't say you provided a logical proof so much as you just asserted that you are right and your stance doesn't allow for any disagreement.

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

I don't am not arguing for or against either position here, I am just trying to ask some questions.

Is it predisposition in this case?:
In my father's side of the family colon and prostate cancer is a certainty (my dad had both, each of his brothers had at least one, as did his father and so on). Cancer is a living organism. After I hit 35 (38 now) I made radical changes in my diet and exercise habits to try to help prevent me from getting those cancers.