Is free-will an illusion?

@Olivier5,

Oh no, not at all Oliv...my world view, and this was tested already by psychology, penalizes less, and teaches more. I believe in education not in retribution and guilt.
That said , my education, my background is humanistic...I just don't want an Eden like foolish humanism...I rather stick with a realist and scientific view of it...no pink glasses for me.
As I see it the brain is not free to chose but as a computing machine is open to information and conditioning. We ought to respect the Res Publica (the public thing). To do that we need to respect failing human beings, not fault them. Teaching is the key and reconditioning antisocial behaviour for a meaningful integrated productive life in the social ecosystem is the goal. This entails embracing the odd and the awkward instead of ostracising it.
Its funny how people are labelled when they don't quite fit the common paradigm of liberalism...
I am a conserver of old truths with the eyes opened for realistic not idealistic liberal reforms...
...no man's land is a hard place to be...but by now I am use to it.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Why would you care about other human beings if according to you they are not any better than rocks?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Because I integrate a social ecosystem and am programmed to care. Birds didn't chose to have wings, they have them and they fly. I do what I must and can.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Because I integrate a social ecosystem and am programmed to care. Birds didn't chose to have wings, they have them and they fly. I do what I must and can.

In case you are about to make the hard question, programmed by who, forget the who and I tell you what and why.

Darwinism, Nature, favours energy efficiency, starting with electric circuits (electricity follows the shortest path) and ending in social behaviour. Social species are more energy efficient then anti social species. Just THAT.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So you have an instinctual morality, like baboons or bonobos for instance?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

...yes I do believe ethics and morality are, let me use your coinage, emergent behaviour out of necessary energy efficiency while Darwinism is at work...social species tend to succeed better then anti social species...and this the more true the more a species progresses in population as pressure builds up to cooperate and be energy efficient or go into chaos and disarray...
so, to the point, yes morality and ethics must have a proto form that comes with some sort of genetic predisposition in most individuals....exception goes for deviants, but those exist for genetic diversity purposes...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Instincts can be fought quite easily though. Each time I swalow a live oyster i have to fight a slight repulsion about eating a live animal. And then i taste how good it is and I grab the next one... So if your morality is instinctive only, it's not very strong.

Along the way you managed to assume that human beings exist and that you're one of them. How do you go from "pure experiencing" to being human?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Each time I swalow a live oyster i have to fight a slight repulsion about eating a live animal.

It is highly unlikely that this is an instinct. People learn their values about what life to take (in other words, what takes learning is not instinctual) .

Quote:

And then i taste how good it is and I grab the next one... So if your morality is instinctive only, it's not very strong.

Exactly in line with points I made earlier. The consequences of your past actions determine why you choose what you choose in the present.

Quote:

How do you go from "pure experiencing" to being human?

Language and the rules society gives you. The "wild child" does not have this.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

It is highly unlikely that this is an instinct.

Doesn't matter, it was just an example. The point is that it's very easy to beat your own instincts, so if Fil's morality is purely instinctive, it's not very strong.

Quote:

Quote:
How do you go from "pure experiencing" to being human?

Language and the rules society gives you. The "wild child" does not have this.

That question was for Fil, who said we should stop at "pure experiencing" when he criticized Descartes' cogito, but did not actually stop there when discussing other matters. IOW he keeps contradicting himself: in one post he sauys that he cannot assume that he is human, but in the next post he talks about human beings as if he was one...

1 Reply

Procriation is also an inctinct and no one thinks its easy to beat, put off, without, again, strong reasons...read causes...go figure breathing...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Procreation is an excellent example of an instinct that we all control pretty well, apart from serial rapists.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Doesn't matter, it was just an example

Well, if you create a false premise to illustrate a point, then the point is not really made. Learning is quite malleable. I used to be squeamish about eating sushi. Now I'm practically sticking my head in a stream and coming out with a salmon in my teeth. Why the change? A particular woman who also loves sushi.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Well, if you create a false premise to illustrate a point,

Stop arguing for the sake of it. It was an example, not a premise. People can do all sorts of things that go against their instinct, eg bungee jumping. Therefore if Fil's morality is instinctive, it's weak.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Fil's Morality is both instintive rational and necessary. Now pay attention to the last bit will ya.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Stop arguing for the sake of it

You must be thinking of someone else you've hung with. Argument for argument's sake is not my bag. Instincts and fixed action patterns have been highly debated concepts when applied to human activity. These terms have typically applied to complex behaviors that require no learning and look highly similar across members of the species in question. There is general agreement that survival and copulation remain as instincts in humans, or a few things that infants do, but disagreement about much else that gets thrown in.
Your observation that people can "override" their instincts I think speaks to how little remains truly instinctual in humans. I imagine you would be happy to agree that not much is instinctual. The more complex activity we come "programmed" to engage in, the less free will there would be, right?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

These terms have typically applied to complex behaviors that require no learning and look highly similar across members of the species in question. There is general agreement that survival and copulation remain as instincts in humans, or a few things that infants do, but disagreement about much else that gets thrown in.
Your observation that people can "override" their instincts I think speaks to how little remains truly instinctual in humans. I imagine you would be happy to agree that not much is instinctual. The more complex activity we come "programmed" to engage in, the less free will there would be, right?

I think the idea that humans have less instincts than say baboons is an obsolete remnant of religion, of Genesis' "made in God's image" thing, and of the view that humans are somewhat inherently different from and superior to animals. Admiting to having instincts is like admiting to be just like baboons... and we don't like to admit that! But in fact, science tells us that we are animals, that we are the cousins of baboons, and therefore it stands to reason that we have more or less the same amount of instincts that baboons have.

We're just mammals, not made in God's image at all. Sorry.

Take the fear of heights/falling: it's a common instinct attested not just in humans but in all mammals. And yet people can do this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Ironworkers.jpg

Therefore, human beings can control their instinctive fears. Likewise, a horse can be trained to control his fear e.g. in Portuguese corrida or in battle. So there is little actual difference between us and other mammals from the instinct point of view. We all have instincts and yet we all can control them, men and beasts alike.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You still have to describe how you proceed, philosophically or logically, from being just content with pure perception to being a member of a human society that needs to abide to a number of rules. Surely if Descartes was wrong to make that jump, you are wrong too... Or was he wrong just because he was French? ;-)))

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You still have to describe how you proceed, philosophically or logically, from being just content with pure perception to being a member of a human society that needs to abide to a number of rules. Surely if Descartes was wrong to make that jump, you are wrong too... Or was he wrong just because he was French? ;-)))

What does one thing has to do with another ?
Lets say for the sake of argument that "I" (place holder) was dreaming about being in a society and being human...from where does it follow that my dream informs me on my OWN nature or SELF ?

...if all you want to say about the nature of experiencing is that it is unified or holistic you are not saying much about the nature of "I" that we all don't already know. It still informs nothing of significance about what "I" is. And much less that its nature is of primary order, REAL per se and not derivative.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

What does one thing has to do with another ?

If all that exists is experience, then the ideas of society or morality have no meaning whatsoever. The concept of human society evidently implies the existence of human individuals who band together to form a society. Likewise the idea of morality implies the existence of persons, of "selves", and the capacity of these selves to prosper or suffer, to live or to die. So in order to speak of society or morality, you need first to accept or establish the existence of persons. Something which you contended cannot be done based on experience.

It's just another one of your many contradictions, or needless confusion. Because of course, the existence of persons is self-evident, including to you. That's the meaning of the cogito: we can doubt of everything if we want to, but not of our own existence as "selves".

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No no my dear. Morality works for energy efficiency in a society whatever "society" is....it states nothing on its nature that can be PROVEN.

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know