Why I don't believe in 'free will'

part of the problem -- for you, evf -- is a question like this: "where's the evidence that my brain has any control over itself any real choice in its controlling?"

the problem (forgive me) is the question is poorly constructed: you --despite being 'in no way dualist' continue to use language in such a way as to indicate otherwise

allow me to rephrase your question: 'given any particular circumstance wherein i can exercise a choice, or choices, can i choose an option, or options, other than what my 'nature' as an individual allows?'


this, evf, is what you mean, yes?


each of us is bound fundamentally by the way the world works: we each carry a blueprint within (genes) that shape, direct, and influence us as we move through the world (in a very real way: the individual restrains himself by way of the limits of his own flesh, his 'self')...so: if my rephrasing is in keeping with your meaning then -- no -- there is no evidence 'your brain has any control over itself any real choice in its controlling' because we -- as individuals -- have no control over our base or foundational 'natures'

but: despite having unalterable 'natures', we aren't robots

it's a mistake, i think, to see our 'natures' as determining (a narrow, short, poorly lit, barren, low-ceilinged, hall with no wiggle room)...better to view the individual's 'nature' as mightily influencing (a well-lit, well-stocked, football stadium-sized space with the individual as the only occupant and owner)

in the hall: i can walk to and fro, sit, squat, lie down and not much else

in the stadium: i can dance, run, jump, sit on the field or on the bleachers, i can climb the end goals...i can read in comfort...eat in comfort...do a great many things (though not an infinite number of things) in my stadium (which is synonymous with 'me')

in no way is my 'stadium' (nature) unlimited, but its spaciousness gives me much, much, more than wiggle room

in the hall: i can survive but never really live as agent

in the stadium: i'm bounded by my 'self' but i can live and i have choices...not unlimited choices, but a wide variety of choices, nonetheless


so: if my rephrasing is in keeping with your meaning then we -- you and me, evf -- are on the same page


we kinda already were with my repeated attempts to kill and bury that great fiction, 'free will', but i wonder if in your attempt to show 'free will' as empty balloon you aren't also -- intentionally or not -- reducing the human individual to inconsequence

let's take this statement of yours as the point of my curiosity: "We have evitability and avoidability"

rather cold words: they remove 'me', 'you', from the mix...or: rather, those words reduce me, you, to mere squiggle in a logical transaction

i prefer: agency, self-possession, self-efficacy, self determination...these words, these placeholders, place the discussion of choice and what it means to be chooser/agent, in the proper context, that being: the organic, real, discrete, autonomous, human individual

make no mistake: ultimately this thread (and every other here and anywhere) is about the organic, real, discrete, autonomous, human individual...as i said up thread, 'while part of a causal chain or chains, (we) also -- as agent(s) -- initiate causal chains'

-----

i just read over the thread and most definitely, you, evf, are as i say above 'reduc(ing) me, you, to mere squiggle in a logical transaction'

one of the most complex mysteries of our individual existences -- why i am an 'I' -- you explain away as the result of 'neurological complexity'

as i say elsewhere in this forum: the luminaries of cognitive and A.I. research can't even come together with a working definition for 'consciousness' much less a working definition for, or explanation of, 'self-consciousness'

i think your position is better served by first addressing the source of agency -- the organic, real, discrete, autonomous, human individual -- as the exceptional 'whole' it is instead of attempting to dissect out and examine 'properties' that can't exist except in the context of the organic, real, discrete, autonomous, human individual

my impression (and i may be wrong) is that you have little interest in the agent, preferring, as many greedy reductionists do (not that 'you' are such a thing), to reduce the agent to 'piece and part'

I think, if you believe that all of your being is determined and you have no say in it, so what the heck are you going to do to make life interesting for yourself. I mean, you are just floating around at the whims of all that is around you, and you have no say in it. Heck, it's OK to view life like that, but if you had a choice, don't you wish that you felt that you had some say in what is going on in your life. I feel that way. I just feel like I can go this way or that way, and it helps me enjoy my Life more. But if it does nothing for you, I think that's fine.

You can feel like that if you want. Probably, from your point of view, you have no choice. Then any discussion becomes probably totally meaningless, because whatever happens happens. I would find that boring in my life. I like to think that I am learning new things and choosing new paths based upon my choices and how it interacts with all that surrounds me. But if you feel you have no choice of direction, so be it.

I would be bored to heck, if I held your views. But I am not you, and if you are satisfied with your direction, that's fine. I remember reading something by Jung. He was asked if there was life after death. He said he didn't know and there is no way to know (I think there are some hints that there are), so since he doesn't know for sure, he prefers to think there is. He feels better that way. Others may feel better by choosing the opposite. I think it is all OK.

There is so rudimentary evidence. There is no reason to live, yet we choose to do it. Why? Well, I blog about this once in a while. But if this is not sufficient evidence for you, I think it is great that you keep trying to find some. Kills time, and it is something to do in life.

I see no reason why you posit the question in this manner. You can posit in the opposite manner, and suggest there is no evidence that everything is determined, and until there is, you can assume that everyone is acting in a manner that is in consensus with what they wish to do and everything surrounding them. That way, you have a say in things also. Until someone proves otherwise, you can feel like you are writing on this forum because you decided to, rather than me deciding for you. Let's just say, we did it together.

I'm not sure there is such thing as a future. Everything that I know of is now. But if I ever see a future, I will definitely let you know. Maybe Dennett can tell me what he sees in the future.

I think the past is what we think it is now, and the future is what we think it will be now. And there is nothing to change, since it is all changing all the time as we travel through life. Whatever transpires, is the result of lots of things all around us, intersecting in each others existences, and things happen. My choice is to go this way or that. Today, I am writing to you. So we intersect (like waves), and something happens. Pretty interesting, I think.

But if you think you want to do something else, try it and see if you can. If you don't think you have any say in the matter, we can try an experiment. I will not post back for one day. Let's see if I can do it? Game?

Rich

EvidenceVsFaith,

When you say "I", who is saying it?

If you don't have an answer for who, then what is saying it?

What amazes me is how people can use their faculty of mind to invalidate their faculty of mind, and then pretend to everyone they have proven the lack of proof.

What perversion in thinking leads people's egos to such an invalidation of their own true IDENTITY?!

Do you really want to learn about truth, or are you interested in competition?

---------- Post added at 04:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 AM ----------

An interesting presentation with EVIDENCE:

YouTube - Modern Science Finds GOD

"When you say "I", who is saying it?"

some folks lump the 'I' in the same category as 'free will': illusory

i, on the other hand, see the 'I' (the agent/agency) as fundamentally real


"What perversion in thinking leads people's egos to such an invalidation of their own true IDENTITY?!"

i wonder the same thing: the 'evidence' of my own existence says otherwise...that is: 'I', as 'organic, discrete, autonomous, human individual' (henry quirk) exist

as i said elsewhere: if the science leads to a denigration of 'I' then i must conclude the science is wrong