MSN debate on Freewill and in general the role of Science and Philosophy

You might be interested in my ideas expressed in a recent MSN convosation. sorry for terrible spelling:


Aidan says:
so greg...any thought on freedom of choce?
choice?
Greg says:
huh?
choice about what?
Aidan says:
any action you may wish to make...
Greg says:
to say the word 'bannana-hammak'?
i just chose to do that to make my point?
whats yoiur point?
Aidan says:
you have no choice SLAVE TO YOUR BODY!!!
Greg says:
if you're a slave to bodily compulsion then you wouldn't care about or value anything (e.g reason, compassion, pleasure) since you would just DO things with no mediate stage of evaluation and conscious judgement.
Essentially a 'slave' as you put it would have no moral sentiments (no feeling of something being good or bad). Nor in fact would evolution have bothered to give you conscious sensations
or feelings since you'll do whatver no matter what you will to be the case
since I (dunno about you) know this is wrong, we must accept that humans can direct (chose) their own behavirous according to their will (values ect)
Aidan says:
conscious thought is a process of a system you never had any impact in the ceation of...you responses are preprogrammed, but can be changed by the actions of others...
Greg says:
you're daring to challegne a practicing philosopher, who has written a Research Essay for his EPQ called 'Unraveling the mystery of consciousness: a defence of physicalism', on conscious thought?
Simon says:
yea
Greg says:
conscious thought is not a process at all. it is a mental description of the world for you to then judge.
so I may consciously perceive a pain sensation from burning my finger on a match and hence judge that I want to move my finger out the way
for example.
Aidan says:
umm, technically no...
heat is detected by receptors, and the reflex reation, not involvint the brain, is to move it away...by conscious effort via inhibitory neurones, this action can be nullified. BUT, this conscious effort is the product of previous experiences, which have led you to wish to burn yourself...

myrmidryad has been added to the conversation.

Aidan says:
EMMA!!!
onlt eight minutes late today
myrmidryad says:
?
Oh, right!
Lol
Aidan says:
yah...
Greg says:
you're overwhelming fallacy, Aiden, is in examining the human as an OBJECT (e.g. of scientific observation) which is indeed physically determined to do anything it does.
You should rather approach the question from examination of the human as a SUBJECT - one who has beliefs and values and uses these to form judgements. it is true that my choice to do whatver is phsycially predetermined - but
Aidan says:
a human is an organism..
myrmidryad says:
Can someone fill me in here?
Aidan says:
no more, no less
a collection of tissues specialised in their own way to mutually benefit the others
a cell is its own organism, but unable to previde for itself
cells contain rganisms, or at least the remnants of them
Greg says:
that does not mean that I (underline the 'I') did not will to do whatever and then I (underline) myself chose to do it because of my beliefs and values


a human is an organism WHEN DESCRIBED OBJECTIVELY - i don't deny
what I mean is that humans (or more specifically me, and probably you) can also be described SUBJECTIVELY - in terms of our desires and ends - and to this extent we are not slaves
to our objective bodies
hey emma
myrmidryad says:
Hi, Greg. Debating again?
Aidan says:
yesh...
Greg says:
i said i didn't want to but aiden asked for it and dared to challenge me
Aidan says:
and i just see humanity as slaves to their bodies, as all emotions and willpower or thought processes are governed by the collection of nerves known as "the brain"
Greg says:
there goes love and other aesthic values

if you say all these thoughts/wills/etc are governed by 'the brain' (put 'the' in italics) then why do YOU have these thoughts/etc? YOU is the subject whom has desires, ends, feelings, beliefs, judgements etc (none of these mental things exist in THE brain, when described as an object as you have)
Aidan says:
do they not? how can you be sure, thought IS brain activity
Greg says:
thought DERIVES from brain activity I agree
and i agree that you could change someone's thoughts by stimulating parts of their brain

BUT - you are again conflating the object (brain) with the subject (mind).
think of it this way: you cannot use x-rays or drugs or surgery to observed someone thinking. you do not see conscious objects in a BRAIN, you only see conscious objects in your MIND
Simon says:
bye
Aidan says:
see ya
Greg says:
bye simon
myrmidryad says:
Lol, later.
Greg says:
xx ighht

Simon has left the conversation.

Aidan says:
greg, brain activity can be monitored, and strenuous thought processes light up th ebrain like a firecracker
Greg says:
you cannot SEE feelings or desires
you can only FEEL them
Aidan says:
however, neurosciencecis so infentismally complicated that i concede we may as well have free will for all we can understand
Greg says:
its not a scientific measure AT ALL
its nothing to do with neuroscience in the slightlest
its about YOU
the mind is not an object (which scienctists study e.g chemicals of particals) but it is a subject
Aidan says:
if you say so...
Greg says:
well its got nothing to do with what i say
its about what is true
or purhaps 'correct' is better word that 'true'
Aidan says:
yes, indeed
Greg says:
lol
Aidan says:
truth is important though
Greg says:
yes but how can you know that a belief is true?
Aidan says:
i dunno, i'm not so hot on belief...my only ability in philosophy is when it overlaps with science
Greg says:
it never overlaps (except on matters of fact e.g. evolution theory) precisely BECAUSE science investigates objects whereas philosophy investigates subjects
Aidan says:
well, whatever you say...
you da philosophy man...
Greg says:
yep and you do science
Aidan says:
it's a deal
Greg says:
lol