8
   

Can we do anything of our own free will?

 
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:06 am
@Twnf,
Twnf wrote:
Quote:
A pluralistic materialism could just as well do without the idea of substance altogether

No substance, no material; so no materialism, pluralistic or otherwise.


Not necessarily. "Substance" names an idea about the nature of material.

Twnf wrote:
Razzleg wrote:
and supply an implicit critique thereof, without surrendering any of its empiricist directives.

Not sure what this means. Could you give me an example please?


"Substance", as it is often used, means the "stuff" behind the appearances of a "thing", the thing-in-itself. That substance is not the object of scientific experiment. When one wants to boil water, one judges its having happened by its change of appearance; not by any change in it's substance. Disparate appearances may assume different forms without reference to an underlying substance.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:14 am
@Razzleg,
I said:

Quote:
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
So you mean that I am a sequitur for action through the action of my willing but action is a non sequitur for me...such idea should be called "Transcendent Dualism"...Dualism is a bad shortcut for what it really means.


You said:

Quote:
i'm not sure what to make of that word salad. I appreciate that you seem to be insinuating an insult into your statement, but i don't feel particularly hurt. As i've said in the past, i'm not a strong advocate for free will, since i find it an inadequate model of historical agency. However, while a variety of reasons or causes may precede an incipient event, i find that it requires a leap to say that their value is necessarily determinative or enunciation imperative.


What is to be clarified here ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? because I can do it straight away...

"Action" refers to causal agency. Why should it go just one way ? WHY CAN I BE THE CAUSE BUT CANNOT BE CAUSED TO CAUSE ?
In what manner it is proven a substantial difference between me and nature ?

Falling for the typical "word salad" convenient set aside any valid argument worth debating, does not suit your intellectual or moral competence...
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:49 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Can you present an all full argument against them step by step?


I'm not entirely sure what you are asking of me. The best i can probably do at this hour (it's late here, and i'm getting tired) is try to show why i think those statements fail to sum up the possible descriptions of an event of "choosing", with an eye toward the distinction between compulsion and cause.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
1 - To say for instance that someone "make´s me do it" against my own free will is utterly false, given based on free will own´s argument I could always have chosen otherwise! So either I can be compelled or I cannot !!!

2 - If I say that I was caused to go for instance to restaurant A, by someone or something else, then I do must implicitly mean that I was not the agent of such choice given in correct English I was caused, I was not the cause. And more, if I were to be this solely cause to this given action to happen then I must admit the impossibility of something causing me in order to prevent a chain of cause to which my own willing was conditioned.

3 - Either I am the solely agent of my choices and therefore cannot be compelled, or, in order to be compelled I must admit that there are causes beyond my free willed decision making... which is the same to admit that I may well not be in control of my own willing !


Well, i hate to tread the same paths as kennethamy, but there seems to be some confusion here as to what causes what and how. In the given situation, one must ask in what sense someone or something caused me to go to the restaurant. If my friend recommends the restaurant to me, he is the cause of my knowing about it. That exchange certainly opens up the possibility of my going to the restaurant, but it in no sense makes it necessary for me to go. My inevitable hunger may inspire me to go to the restaurant, but one would be hard pressed to call my hunger an external cause. "My hunger" describes an aspect of myself, and so could hardly be compulsory. And so on and so forth.

Compulsion merely implies that we have different priorities given different circumstances, and that one may choose to act based on what is currently accessible to us, even if the act fails to satisfy all of our other desires.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
3 - Either I am the solely agent of my choices and therefore cannot be compelled, or, in order to be compelled I must admit that there are causes beyond my free willed decision making... which is the same to admit that I may well not be in control of my own willing !


This is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to say that both "being the sole agent of my choice" and "causes beyond my free will" are not simultaneously possible.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:56 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"Action" refers to causal agency. Why should it go just one way ? WHY CAN I BE THE CAUSE BUT CANNOT BE CAUSED TO CAUSE ?
In what manner it is proven a substantial difference between me and nature ?


i'm not drawing a distinction between myself (or you) and nature. i am a part of temporal nature. I am caused to be born, and i will be caused to die. Within the area circumscribed by those two events, i belong to a community of causes. Given my own temporary dynamism, i can resist some "causes" and not others. Why would i be the only, lonely effect in an otherwise cause-filled nature?

And now, i'll say goodnight...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 01:21 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"Action" refers to causal agency. Why should it go just one way ? WHY CAN I BE THE CAUSE BUT CANNOT BE CAUSED TO CAUSE ?
In what manner it is proven a substantial difference between me and nature ?


i'm not drawing a distinction between myself (or you) and nature. i am a part of temporal nature. I am caused to be born, and i will be caused to die. Within the area circumscribed by those two events, i belong to a community of causes. Given my own temporary dynamism, i can resist some "causes" and not others. Why would i be the only, lonely effect in an otherwise cause-filled nature?

And now, i'll say goodnight...


That one can "resist " to some would be causes is not at stake.
What is at stake is in what matter "I am their solely agent" with causes around, since if I resist to these forces there are no causes for me to resist in the first place...the potential cause is caused to not cause, through me but not by me, and if there are causes behind and beyond me , why am I to be said the ONE agent on them ? Causes imply by definition a chain...

Thank you for your time and Goodnight !
Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 08:46 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:


That one can "resist " to some would be causes is not at stake.
What is at stake is in what matter "I am their solely agent" with causes around, since if I resist to these forces there are no causes for me to resist in the first place...the potential cause is caused to not cause, through me but not by me, and if there are causes behind and beyond me , why am I to be said the ONE agent on them ? Causes imply by definition a chain...

Right, resisting a cause can only be poetry for some kind of conflict. At first glance the conflict is a local situation. The poetry of objectivity would have it that a conflict is between competing possible universes. Each possible outcome is a universe with it's own unique history. However the conflict is resolved, the resolution is an event preceded by a causal chain which makes that outcome inevitable.

At the point we're exerting effort in the name of one possibility, we imagine we're in a universe with an established history. Yet we're simultaneously imagining that history is not fixed. To exert individual will is to seek to dictate everything everywhere throughout all time. So individual will is identification with God.

Maybe that's what Nietsche meant by the question "doesn't he know God is dead?" What died was God as the other. God is subsumed into the self when one pictures the world in terms of Will.

But are we required to understand events as being preceded by a causal chain? Apparently we're locked into that by the nature of meaning. It started when we asked why? This was an attempt to relate an event to a bigger picture. In other words, the effort to comprehend leads straight to a monist perspective. The alternative is meaninglessness. But every monist is also a dualist... otherwise there would be no vantage point on the monad and monism itself would not exist.

So freedom of the will exists for a God with a malleable toy multiverse. This God is free because it's separated from the mechanical pattern of the toy.

But this God is free in the same way an author or artist is. Halfway through the creation of a work of art, one senses freedom to dictate the form of the piece. But at this point, there are already a finite number of possible outcomes. The closer to completion one comes, the smaller that number becomes until it drops to one. Which is why my own paintings are never completed in my own mind. Once they're completed, they're no longer alive. And creating life is what drives me. Got off on a tangent there. Thanks dude!
Twnf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 09:36 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
For free will to exist there needs to be a non-physical "you" that is not compelled by experiential conditioning or inherited biological drives.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 02:05 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Can you present an all full argument against them step by step?


I'm not entirely sure what you are asking of me. The best i can probably do at this hour (it's late here, and i'm getting tired) is try to show why i think those statements fail to sum up the possible descriptions of an event of "choosing", with an eye toward the distinction between compulsion and cause.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
1 - To say for instance that someone "make´s me do it" against my own free will is utterly false, given based on free will own´s argument I could always have chosen otherwise! So either I can be compelled or I cannot !!!

2 - If I say that I was caused to go for instance to restaurant A, by someone or something else, then I do must implicitly mean that I was not the agent of such choice given in correct English I was caused, I was not the cause. And more, if I were to be this solely cause to this given action to happen then I must admit the impossibility of something causing me in order to prevent a chain of cause to which my own willing was conditioned.

3 - Either I am the solely agent of my choices and therefore cannot be compelled, or, in order to be compelled I must admit that there are causes beyond my free willed decision making... which is the same to admit that I may well not be in control of my own willing !


Well, i hate to tread the same paths as kennethamy, but there seems to be some confusion here as to what causes what and how. In the given situation, one must ask in what sense someone or something caused me to go to the restaurant. If my friend recommends the restaurant to me, he is the cause of my knowing about it. That exchange certainly opens up the possibility of my going to the restaurant, but it in no sense makes it necessary for me to go. My inevitable hunger may inspire me to go to the restaurant, but one would be hard pressed to call my hunger an external cause. "My hunger" describes an aspect of myself, and so could hardly be compulsory. And so on and so forth.

Compulsion merely implies that we have different priorities given different circumstances, and that one may choose to act based on what is currently accessible to us, even if the act fails to satisfy all of our other desires.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
3 - Either I am the solely agent of my choices and therefore cannot be compelled, or, in order to be compelled I must admit that there are causes beyond my free willed decision making... which is the same to admit that I may well not be in control of my own willing !


This is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to say that both "being the sole agent of my choice" and "causes beyond my free will" are not simultaneously possible.


No ! There are forces around each pushing in its own way inside your mind and out of external stimuli...the prevailing one will be the strongest in darwinian "natural selection" terms and your conscience will automatically be in accordance with it...Mind functions as a cohesive Whole remember ?
You won´t go against the prevailing forces that make you think in the first place.

...as for not being Kennethamy, well...don´t be.

PS - Thank you for your time despite of the advanced hour...in Portugal it was 7 A.M. and I was not yet to sleep by my previous last post to you...nevertheless I felt that the talk was being productive and I kept on...thanks again !
0 Replies
 
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 06:09 pm
@Arjuna,
Quote:
But this God is free in the same way an author or artist is. Halfway through the creation of a work of art, one senses freedom to dictate the form of the piece. But at this point, there are already a finite number of possible outcomes. The closer to completion one comes, the smaller that number becomes until it drops to one. Which is why my own paintings are never completed in my own mind. Once they're completed, they're no longer alive. And creating life is what drives me. Got off on a tangent there. Thanks dude!


The author and artist are not free in the way you imply: "But at this point, there are already a finite number of possible outcomes." So at what point in this process are there more than finite number of outcomes for the artist?

The human eye has limited visual acuity and field of vision, which could give us a human resolution of visual perception that could be quantified, and at each point of resolution there is a limited number of colors we can distinguish between. These limiting values of resolution and color lead us to a finite number of total combinations of images that can be seen. I think the formula for the number of combinations would be: colors^resolution (number of colors to the power of number of resolvable points). That might be reversed, I'm not sure, but regardless the number of combinations would be very large not infinite.

Now if you take it that the resolution and color of sight is at least as good using your eyes as it is in your mind when you are thinking through possibilities then you now are limited to that total number of combinations in visualizaton. This same could be said for any sense you have: sight, sound, touch etc. I am making this point because often we are overwhelmed by the power of the mind and forget it has limitations based in the physical world. By seeing that all sensation and emotion are limited we could even come up with a total number of possible combinations for our overall experiences. Even our thoughts given they are limited to the experience of sensation (perceived in nature or in the minds eye) and emotion.

Within these combinations, it could still be argued that there is something special about the mind that sets it apart from lifeless objects like computers and I would completely agree. I think that the experience of sensation and emotion and thought, though completely determined, has a "weight" to it and creates a reality that rises above nothingness. But I also think the experience is so powerful that it can cloud judgement on issues like whether free-will exists.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 10:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Good evening, Fil.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
That one can "resist " to some would be causes is not at stake.
What is at stake is in what matter "I am their solely agent" with causes around, since if I resist to these forces there are no causes for me to resist in the first place...the potential cause is caused to not cause, through me but not by me, and if there are causes behind and beyond me , why am I to be said the ONE agent on them ? Causes imply by definition a chain...(my emphasis)


I don't think the final, italicized statement is necessarily true, and in so far as the the preceding remarks are based upon this figure they are not necessarily valid either. If a chain is your metaphor for cause and effect, then it's not terribly surprising that you feel that it binds.

The temporal pattern you seem to me to be sketching is a diagram of linear temporal progression. Of course, events do develop that way sometimes, but there are other ways that events come to pass, equally true. One could also diagram temporal relations as a funnel, or a web, a vortex, or an explosion, a dotted or fading line, a pile of vertical layers, or a a set of concentric circles. One of the problems with the "time-line" method of sketching history is that it tends to reduce all causes to the form of efficient cause. But i think that causes act in a variety of different ways, irreducible to one another, or to put it another way, they assume a variety of different forms.

A human being does not act in a vacuum, certainly, which is to say that her actions take place in on a plane accessible to a plethora of causal factors, or other beings, but this multiplicity does not necessitate that her being partake only of a negative aspect.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
No ! There are forces around each pushing in its own way inside your mind and out of external stimuli...the prevailing one will be the strongest in darwinian "natural selection" terms and your conscience will automatically be in accordance with it...Mind functions as a cohesive Whole remember ?
You won´t go against the prevailing forces that make you think in the first place.


No, i don't remember, but if things were as you described: how reliable am i to count my memory? i'm curious as to what makes you think that "mind" functions as a whole, not to mention what makes you think that decision- making is entirely a matter of "mind" (which i am currently translating into my own argot as "consciousness".)

My objection to this point is much the same as my last. We could treat your causal contest as a new temporal model, or we could consider it as a variation of the funnel diagram. Whichever response seems more appropriate to you, i still do not see the model as definitive of a person's relationship with her surroundings. Your method seems a mite too exclusive to me; you seem intent upon an either/or conclusion to this topic. i have no qualms in saying that there are circumstances in which a person's actions have been determined, either by external forces or by a rogue "inner" component. (Although, i'm not entirely comfortable with the inner/outer analogy.) On the other hand, i think there are other circumstances in which the individual exercises "sovereignty" over her own actions. The results of such actions may or may not match the desired goal, but that is of little matter when evaluating the individual's freedom to act.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 10:32 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:
Right, resisting a cause can only be poetry for some kind of conflict. At first glance the conflict is a local situation. The poetry of objectivity would have it that a conflict is between competing possible universes. Each possible outcome is a universe with it's own unique history. However the conflict is resolved, the resolution is an event preceded by a causal chain which makes that outcome inevitable.

At the point we're exerting effort in the name of one possibility, we imagine we're in a universe with an established history. Yet we're simultaneously imagining that history is not fixed. To exert individual will is to seek to dictate everything everywhere throughout all time. So individual will is identification with God.

Maybe that's what Nietsche meant by the question "doesn't he know God is dead?" What died was God as the other. God is subsumed into the self when one pictures the world in terms of Will.

But are we required to understand events as being preceded by a causal chain? Apparently we're locked into that by the nature of meaning. It started when we asked why? This was an attempt to relate an event to a bigger picture. In other words, the effort to comprehend leads straight to a monist perspective. The alternative is meaninglessness. But every monist is also a dualist... otherwise there would be no vantage point on the monad and monism itself would not exist.

So freedom of the will exists for a God with a malleable toy multiverse. This God is free because it's separated from the mechanical pattern of the toy.

But this God is free in the same way an author or artist is. Halfway through the creation of a work of art, one senses freedom to dictate the form of the piece. But at this point, there are already a finite number of possible outcomes. The closer to completion one comes, the smaller that number becomes until it drops to one. Which is why my own paintings are never completed in my own mind. Once they're completed, they're no longer alive. And creating life is what drives me. Got off on a tangent there. Thanks dude!


Arjuna, i disagree. i don't mean to appear overly contentious, but here are my objections to the above:

i am not a big fan of the multiple worlds theory. I
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 11:06 pm
@Arjuna,
Poop...a mistype led me to post a foreshortened version of my response. Here is the full version. I apoligise for the mistake.

Arjuna wrote:
Right, resisting a cause can only be poetry for some kind of conflict. At first glance the conflict is a local situation. The poetry of objectivity would have it that a conflict is between competing possible universes. Each possible outcome is a universe with it's own unique history. However the conflict is resolved, the resolution is an event preceded by a causal chain which makes that outcome inevitable.

At the point we're exerting effort in the name of one possibility, we imagine we're in a universe with an established history. Yet we're simultaneously imagining that history is not fixed. To exert individual will is to seek to dictate everything everywhere throughout all time. So individual will is identification with God.

Maybe that's what Nietsche meant by the question "doesn't he know God is dead?" What died was God as the other. God is subsumed into the self when one pictures the world in terms of Will.

But are we required to understand events as being preceded by a causal chain? Apparently we're locked into that by the nature of meaning. It started when we asked why? This was an attempt to relate an event to a bigger picture. In other words, the effort to comprehend leads straight to a monist perspective. The alternative is meaninglessness. But every monist is also a dualist... otherwise there would be no vantage point on the monad and monism itself would not exist.

So freedom of the will exists for a God with a malleable toy multiverse. This God is free because it's separated from the mechanical pattern of the toy.

But this God is free in the same way an author or artist is. Halfway through the creation of a work of art, one senses freedom to dictate the form of the piece. But at this point, there are already a finite number of possible outcomes. The closer to completion one comes, the smaller that number becomes until it drops to one. Which is why my own paintings are never completed in my own mind. Once they're completed, they're no longer alive. And creating life is what drives me. Got off on a tangent there. Thanks dude!


Arjuna, i disagree. i don't mean to appear overly contentious, but here are my objections to the above:

i am not a big fan of the multiple worlds theory. It seems to me to be a rather futile attempt on the part of the linear time model's advocates to adapt their model to the demands of modern physics and the ancient contrast of actuality to possibility. That is, they would rather multiply the line than treat "the time-line" as one model for time among others. Instead of the rather unconvincing "multiverse" of the average multiple worlds theorist, consider that "time" may be a more fluid "element" than otherwise surmised, and that various abstractions of time may be necessary to realistically analyze movements in reality. Given such reservations, a local event may indeed remain little besides a local event, and it's larger influence must be reckoned in conjunction with other local events, as well as, of course, larger cosmic trends.

As for free will, Nietzsche, and the godhead: given that cause may be less static a concept than it might otherwise be, i do not think that an advocate of free will must pretend to a divine aspect, nor need this advocate be a monist/secret dualist. By the same token, i do not think that Nietzsche's "God is dead" implies that humanity declares the divinity deceased to assume "his" omnipotence. i think that like most of Nietzsche's declarations, his psychological analysis has a moral focus. It tends to focus on the atrophy of supposed divine omniscience (along with the implicit moral implications thereof), as an opportunity for humanity's earthly will to express itself.

And to finish with a small contention with your description of the artist's role: Once one has chosen the medium in which one chooses to exercise oneself, the options are quite limited. Not only are the senses limited, as tomr has stated, but the art's medium itself exercises certain limiting factors. If you sense total freedom when you are just half-done with your paintings, i envy you. When i write, i see restrictions from the outset. Although the blank page signals a plenitude of means, it is negotiating the constraints without sacrificing intent that marks a successful work to me. The life of the work exists only insofar as it survives the gauntlet.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 11:11 pm
@Twnf,
Twnf wrote:

For free will to exist there needs to be a non-physical "you" that is not compelled by experiential conditioning or inherited biological drives.


Why "non-physical"? You describe "inherited biological drives" and "experiential conditioning" as if they do not ever conflict. What if they were to "disagree"? And to what and within what do such drives and conditioning adhere, and in what way might they adhere to their "target"?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 03:26 am
Since we can't live without our body, my thinking about free will has to do with our biology and environment. In other words, our free will is dictated by our biology and the environment in which we are born and live. We are constrained by our body in many ways, and how we perceive the world is developed through the culture, language, and living standard (often influenced by governments) of where we mature. Beyond those "limitations," we do have free will with the caveat that we must abide by laws, physical limitations, and surviving in the society in which we live.

Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 06:34 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Poop...a mistype led me to post a foreshortened version of my response. Here is the full version. I apoligise for the mistake.
Hi. I caught the "foreshortened." Are you an artist?

I didn't really mean to put up a claim. I was following the hills and valleys of how we think about events. It's been a long time since I read about the alternate universe idea as an implication of the collapse of the wave function. And I understand that there are new outlooks in physics that use the world multiverse in a different way. What I meant was that we do think in terms of alternate realties... like when we say "could have been."

Razzleg wrote:

It tends to focus on the atrophy of supposed divine omniscience (along with the implicit moral implications thereof), as an opportunity for humanity's earthly will to express itself.
That's not too different from what I was suggesting. I would just say that if we look at the world in terms of will, "God is dead" represents a shift toward conscious ownership of will. Humanity's earthly will has always been expressing itself, if sometimes hampered by half-conscious conflict.

Razzleg wrote:

And to finish with a small contention with your description of the artist's role: Once one has chosen the medium in which one chooses to exercise oneself, the options are quite limited. Not only are the senses limited, as tomr has stated, but the art's medium itself exercises certain limiting factors. If you sense total freedom when you are just half-done with your paintings, i envy you. When i write, i see restrictions from the outset. Although the blank page signals a plenitude of means, it is negotiating the constraints without sacrificing intent that marks a successful work to me. The life of the work exists only insofar as it survives the gauntlet.
Yea, you're the second person to think I was suggesting that an artist's options are infinite at some point. I wasn't, but that got me thinking about the state of things at the very beginning of a production. Prior to the formation of something, you have a blank canvas which suggests wide-open possibilities. Perhaps infinite "for all practical purposes" would apply.

I get the "negotiating the constraints." The medium is a significant part of any artwork. One is seeing what that medium can do. It's limitations are a blessing. There's something about being limited that both challenges and inspires, you know? Maybe "channels" is the word.

But anyway, what I actually meant was that an artist is creative within a framework. Any expression involves the will to speak, but for that will to be expressed, one must become bound to the structure of language or medium. I see discussions of free will hovering near that situation without looking straight at it. The will is always bound, it can't be otherwise, because then it would have no means of making itself known. The unexpressable will is logically nonexistent.... it's an idea, but it only marks a boundary of meaning.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 08:18 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Good evening, Fil.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
That one can "resist " to some would be causes is not at stake.
What is at stake is in what matter "I am their solely agent" with causes around, since if I resist to these forces there are no causes for me to resist in the first place...the potential cause is caused to not cause, through me but not by me, and if there are causes behind and beyond me , why am I to be said the ONE agent on them ? Causes imply by definition a chain...(my emphasis)


I don't think the final, italicized statement is necessarily true, and in so far as the the preceding remarks are based upon this figure they are not necessarily valid either. If a chain is your metaphor for cause and effect, then it's not terribly surprising that you feel that it binds.

The temporal pattern you seem to me to be sketching is a diagram of linear temporal progression. Of course, events do develop that way sometimes, but there are other ways that events come to pass, equally true. One could also diagram temporal relations as a funnel, or a web, a vortex, or an explosion, a dotted or fading line, a pile of vertical layers, or a a set of concentric circles. One of the problems with the "time-line" method of sketching history is that it tends to reduce all causes to the form of efficient cause. But i think that causes act in a variety of different ways, irreducible to one another, or to put it another way, they assume a variety of different forms.

A human being does not act in a vacuum, certainly, which is to say that her actions take place in on a plane accessible to a plethora of causal factors, or other beings, but this multiplicity does not necessitate that her being partake only of a negative aspect.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
No ! There are forces around each pushing in its own way inside your mind and out of external stimuli...the prevailing one will be the strongest in darwinian "natural selection" terms and your conscience will automatically be in accordance with it...Mind functions as a cohesive Whole remember ?
You won´t go against the prevailing forces that make you think in the first place.


No, i don't remember, but if things were as you described: how reliable am i to count my memory? i'm curious as to what makes you think that "mind" functions as a whole, not to mention what makes you think that decision- making is entirely a matter of "mind" (which i am currently translating into my own argot as "consciousness".)

My objection to this point is much the same as my last. We could treat your causal contest as a new temporal model, or we could consider it as a variation of the funnel diagram. Whichever response seems more appropriate to you, i still do not see the model as definitive of a person's relationship with her surroundings. Your method seems a mite too exclusive to me; you seem intent upon an either/or conclusion to this topic. i have no qualms in saying that there are circumstances in which a person's actions have been determined, either by external forces or by a rogue "inner" component. (Although, i'm not entirely comfortable with the inner/outer analogy.) On the other hand, i think there are other circumstances in which the individual exercises "sovereignty" over her own actions. The results of such actions may or may not match the desired goal, but that is of little matter when evaluating the individual's freedom to act.


Hi there Razzleg !

lets see if I can clarify some aspects on your reply to my post :

1 - Of course in the context, by mind I could only meant Consciousness, as free Will imply´s rationalization on the decision making, or in turn we definitely would be jumping from action to reaction...so wrong turn there. Also I am very much aware that mind goes well beyond the emerging Conscientious process were conflicts are already resolved...that was precisely the point against free will, it, the decision process, starts before we become Conscientious. Conscience emerges Holistically after and not before the many aspects that conditioned your decision making either go left or right situations...
Now the point is what makes you certain that we don´t function as processors of Information ? Consciousness is an epiphenomena is n ´t it ?

2 - When talking about cause and effect, besides efficient cause, I much consider final and first causes also...nevertheless temporal fluctuations are not themselves a constraint in efficient cause...So far that I know you cannot kill your grandfather before your were even born...Space Time relativity only diversifies the number of possible agents interacting in the panorama as it goes, in the given local ensemble scenery a Tx...nevertheless to even speak in Cause we must imply a mechanic model of some sort or as I see it is better to leave it aside all together and believe in magic...the idea that efficient cause can contradict a final Cause goes against the very understanding of what LAW means and is from the ontological to the phenomenological. Orderly Process ! To go a bit metaphorical, remember that "Father" "Son" and the "Holly Ghost" cannot contradict themselves but bind together. From "Heaven" to Earth, from the Noumena to the Phenomena LAW must match all the way...you need mechanics there.

Bare in mind that although you can "speed up" you never can "speed down"...there is Mechanics working on, and LAW is very much about that...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 08:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
You only bring it so far given a limited scope of analysis that restrain us all from knowing...but concerning free will either we have it or we don´t ! You cannot go both way´s.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 09:23 am
A small detail, by " speeding down" I meant actually go beyond the speed of light...but is better to make it clear now. It was a metaphor for going backwards ! (a bad one )
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 09:50 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:


Consciousness is an epiphenomena is n ´t it ?
More on the epiphenomena? How are we considering the question if not through this epiphenomena? In a dream, it would appear to the epi-p that there must be a causal chain leading backward. This is it's rationalization. It's world is made of forces and customs, rules... none of which just pop into existance out of nowhere. That would be magic. What is the truth about the history of the epi=p's world? Is the truth not absurd... relatively?

I guess I'm asking... how do you understand this epi-p?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 09:56 am
Resuming:

The only "freedom" that we can expect is to meet our own nature in the World...
The "Son" meets the "Father" through the "Holly Ghost" which is the LAW made process !

...We don´t decide. We are decided !
...The World IS already, its not becoming !
..."God" is complete ! As Truth is... (God and the World are ONE)

So are we free ? Not really.
God is free ? Not really.

What does freedom means after all ?
To be (become) what we are (Being) !!! (and we are with the world not against it ! )
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 05:32:24