40
   

Is free-will an illusion?

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 11:47 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
For example if you had all of your senses damage or removed could you perceive the world or even your self?
Interesting Krump to speculate that the soul might be everything about one except his body
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 10:23 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg, I appreciate your decoupling of ego and agency. I have always taken their unity for granted. We tend to think that all deeds (like Descartes' thoughts) require/imply doers (likeD's thinker). Our language has much to do with this. Rain--as I've noted before-tends to imply an "it/doer", as in "it rains". We can't simply announce "rains".
I'm willing to consider the concept of agency as somehow the domain of some action, i.e., an act performed by me as opposed to one performed by you. But I would not be able to suggest that agency in this sense of location implies an ego that is substantial. My "ego" might be something like Krumple's cloud, constantly changing: lacking substance but having location.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 10:55 pm
@Krumple,
Hi, Krumple, i like your response, but i apologize because there has been some confusion. The question, "what are the points originating that projection [of self]?" was inspired by your metaphor, but it wasn't really directed at you. I'd like to say that it was directed back at myself, but it was really more of a ridiculously inadequate, rhetorical flourish.

Krumple wrote:

It really is simple. It comes down to how the mind functions. I actually think the best way to describe it is by removing the parts. For example if you had all of your senses damage or removed could you perceive the world or even your self? No because the senses are the only way we connect with reality, remove them and we have no way of determining anything at all.

Get rid of your eyes and you can no longer see objects. Get rid of your hearing and you can no longer hear sounds. Get rid of your sense of touch and you would not be able to feel anything from the body. Get rid of taste buds and you wouldn't be able to taste anything. Get rid of sense of smell and you wouldn't be able to smell anything. We would have no way of experiencing reality if we had lost all of these, however; we would still have the mind and the thoughts that fill the mind.

Now let's go really extreme with this. What if you were born without the five senses, no eye, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no ability to feel sensations? You would never develop an identity. You would never learn that the world even exists. You would never know your mother or father. You wouldn't know what a god was. You wouldn't even know what you are. Because it is only by our senses that we develop and learn and get conditioned for what things are that we are experiencing.

So what happens is. There is an object, which I call the sense data. Like the color red for the eyes is the sense data red. When our eyes sense the color red the data get's processed by our brains. Initially we don't see it as red yet, we just have a sense of the data, which comes in the form of a feeling or sensation within the brain. We find it pleasant, unpleasant or are indifferent to it. The sense data must exists first or else there is nothing to perceive at all. If nothing exists then your senses wouldn't even sense anything.

What comes next is perception. We perceive the color red but don't label it yet, all there is the data color in this example. What follows after perception is the impulse response to the color, these are usually habits that develop in response to the sense data interaction. At this point is where we create opinions, likes or dislikes about the sense data.

Finally we have consciousness or discernment of the sense data. This is where we solidify the sense data into something we think to be real. We label it, categorize it and store the data for future use into memory.

These five steps happen very quickly, almost too quick to actually discern but they can be examine and you can test weather or not I am right. It takes a bit of practice but it can be done.

However; after all that said, there is absolutely no where in any of this that shows there is something fundamentally under it all. All it is, is a culmination of parts. Break any one of these parts and the whole system stops. For example.

Destroy the eye and there is no eye consciousness. We would never be able to perceive the color red with destroyed eyes. The reason is because the sense data needs the sense organ to get to the brain. If it can not reach the brain the brain does not respond to the data at all.

This is true for all the senses. This is why there would be nothing if you were to remove all the senses. We wouldn't be able to determine anything. Some would try to argue that we would but it is because they haven't actually investigated the process to see and verify for themselves that this is actually how it works.


i liked your cloud metaphor, but i have omitted it from the quote, all the same, because it is not relevant to the point i want to make.

And, i'm not going to break down your post much to make individual points; it seems to consist largely of one argument. But i would like to make one nit-picky point: Sense data, and their appropriate conduits are parts of- or intrinsically linked to- the brain, not the mind. i'm not trying to argue that mind exists without brain, that seems ridiculous to me, but their relationship is not one of identity. The relationship between brain and mind is more complicated.

That being said, even the brain's functions cannot be reduced to a compiler of sensory data. Motor controls, while responding to sense-data are not the same thing as accepting or interpreting sense-date. hile a brain is an organ operating within a living being, and a living being could not exist, much less be born of other living beings, without sensory data, it is not true to say that a living being lives on sensory data. A thing without sensory data is either a dead thing or a thing un-born, but that sense-data is a tool that enables the living being to subsist. Sensory data is an enabler, not a source of nutrition.

Imagine an individual deprived of all senses but touch -- that person would still thrash around, at the very least, in an attempt to achieve more intimate contact with the origins of her only sense. More than likely, she would still be able to learn certain things (develop consciously) even were she unreachable to contemporary methods of communication -- imagine the torments of a four-year-old Helen Keller.

But the idea of a senseless organism, that is impossible. Life does not precede sense; sense is an aspect of life.

And while, of course, "life" is merely an abstraction -- it is an abstraction produced by "our" observation of living beings. That aspect of living beings that requires us to recognize their individual "livingness" is, to my mind, a similar aspect to that which recognizes their agency.

Krumple wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

Agency does not seem to me to be a product of "consciousness", or even "self-consciousness". In other words, agency precedes consciousness/ ego. What say you?


From my previous description, there is no place for agency at all. It is a mistaken illusion that arises only because of this process. These five steps once they come together give the impression that there is agency but there is none. The reason I can say this, is because if you remove any one of the steps where is the agency? It is no where to be found at all. Not even in the smallest portion can it be found.


The steps of sensory input, data comparison, and data filing are steps in the construction of consciousness. My point is that agency is not a product of consciousness -- rather the converse.

True, the gradations you describe exclude decision making, but decisions are developed within the maturation of this process, both within and because of-. Consciousness, and its more practical aspect - decision making, are both aspects of agency -- that is, they implicate it and are implicated in it. "Decisions" are a byproduct of agency, but the means for making them are not the source of agency. Agency, like "life", precedes its observable qualities.

That's the idea, anyway. Sheesh, what a nonsensical post.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 12:02 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Razzleg, I appreciate your decoupling of ego and agency. I have always taken their unity for granted. We tend to think that all deeds (like Descartes' thoughts) require/imply doers (likeD's thinker). Our language has much to do with this. Rain--as I've noted before-tends to imply an "it/doer", as in "it rains". We can't simply announce "rains".
I'm willing to consider the concept of agency as somehow the domain of some action, i.e., an act performed by me as opposed to one performed by you. But I would not be able to suggest that agency in this sense of location implies an ego that is substantial. My "ego" might be something like Krumple's cloud, constantly changing: lacking substance but having location.


Thanks. My previous post directed at Krumple seems inexcusably clumsy to me. Hopefully i'll do a better job here.

i do think that actions require actors, at least as a catalyst. But i do not think that action requires an agenda -- it does not require a temporal projection (which i view as the largest portion of "ego") or an atemporal schematic about the shape of things. i imagine that this statement will end our accord, as much as i enjoy it, but i want to make my position clear.

For me, (and i'm going to try to adopt an errant version of your provisional terminology here [although i suspect that i'll be unsuccessful]) both doers and do-ables (that is, both other actors and environments) exist in a complicated inter-actable state. However, insofar as deeds exist they only product of that interaction and as a condition for further interaction.

Ugh, that is as unclear as anything that i said to Krumple. How is this?: Once deeds occur, the relationship between doers and do-ables is manifest. The deed establishes the relationship between the doer and the do-ables.

Bah. Still nonsense; how to say it? Both ego and deed are products of agency. As in, both are the offspring of the mating of living being and habitat.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 12:15 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Razzleg, I appreciate your decoupling of ego and agency. I have always taken their unity for granted. We tend to think that all deeds (like Descartes' thoughts) require/imply doers (like D's thinker). Our language has much to do with this. Rain--as I've noted before-tends to imply an "it/doer", as in "it rains". We can't simply announce "rains".
I'm willing to consider the concept of agency as somehow the domain of some action, i.e., an act performed by me as opposed to one performed by you. But I would not be able to suggest that agency in this sense of location implies an ego that is substantial. My "ego" might be something like Krumple's cloud, constantly changing: lacking substance but having location.


One last thing for the night: i don't know of anyone that says "it rains", unless they are feeling pretentiously poetic. What most people say is, "its raining". The cause of the rain is both multiple and complicated, but where it is coming form is not. "Its raining" may indicate that rain is occurring, but "it's raining" may also indicate a certain cloud bank from which the droplets originate.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 03:05 am
@Razzleg,
...well Razz, not wanting to be unnecessarily annoying but ultimately, "it rains", indeed...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 10:23 am
In my opinion, people aren't nearly poetic enough in their expressions.
You see, 'it rains' might bring pains to your brains.
But 'it's raining' is straining my training.

But what is the difference between 'it rains' and 'its raining'? Intuitively, I get the sense that 'raining' implies a doer more than 'rains' does...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 02:31 pm
@Cyracuz,
...yes, if for one "its raining" imply s a cause and refers to the action, the preference for "it rains", more deeply, categorises a phenomenal matter of fact, the "systemic phenomenal substance" or the "behavioural quality" which results in raining..."it rains" intends as timeless...in there the recognition, the witnessing, that raining is something that can/is happening in our universe.

...while "its raining" is vulgar "it rains" is indeed profound...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 04:13 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The structure, "It rains" is required in English. It is the subject-object structure that Nietzsche says has a logico-metaphysical implication: creations necesssarily have creators; deeds necessarily have doers; thoughts necessarily have thinkers; etc. --leading Nietzsche to declare that grammar is the metaphysics of the masses.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 04:56 pm
@JLNobody,
We often say that words can be captivating. They can truly enslave our thoughts.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:55 pm
@JLNobody,
...funny my interpretation goes exactly in the opposite sense you explained it..."it rains" reports no causal relations but the timeless acknowledgement of a true experience..."its (the verb) raining (the thing)" being an active process on the contrary requires further justification and further entanglement... Wink
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 11:10 pm
@Cyracuz,
Isn't that true of language in general; it both liberates and enslaves?
imans
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2012 08:01 am
language never enslave since language by definition is to realize and value the existence of free communications, so it is always in freedom condition the free expression about anything or any self will

but to u language is never the sentences u make nor mean, it is the literature u must worship in order to get a social status allowing u to b the intelligent or intellectual character u want to play in meaning ur life

when language by definition cant b alive since always through the concept of else communications so never one, it shows and prove how u r an opposition to existence which can never b one otherwise it wont b objective fact, while u cant but mean one life so existence abuse for what u might certainly get from



0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2012 09:33 am
@JLNobody,
That seems true to me JL.
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2012 10:50 am
@Krumple,
infinite ways is possible in lies, it is the whole point that made god
how to take advantage of least true for most lies life incomes to give it forms for some times

truth kill infinity from infinite nature becoming nothing when truth is present since truth is beyond and the major reason of infinite essence

but lies take advantage of knowing infinite nature not that god ways is in any kind infinite, that is how with god it cant b but one life, while him aliar like any other gathering more lies inventions for more powerful forces on forms, so it is not even his life it is just one way of infinite lies constant reasons

that is why liars fight against each others too, which often appear bizarrr when it is obvious how they are the same life
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 11:32 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

The structure, "It rains" is required in English. It is the subject-object structure that Nietzsche says has a logico-metaphysical implication: creations necesssarily have creators; deeds necessarily have doers; thoughts necessarily have thinkers; etc. --leading Nietzsche to declare that grammar is the metaphysics of the masses.


Reading over my hastily typed (and hastily thought over) last post -- nothing is communicated as clearly as my outright dickishness. i was clearly having a "kennethamy" moment, and i'm sorry if my negative attitude killed a fruitful thread, or insulted and discouraged a person that i regard as an excellent contributor to this forum and a worthwhile thinker, in general.

Perhaps my spikiness was an act of preemptive self-defense, given the vagueness, and self-perceived inadequacy, of my earlier posts; but that explanation does not excuse it. i'm sorry; i'm kind of an asshole.

All of that being said (and here's the pathetic, "self justifying" kicker), while "it rains" is not grammatically incorrect, it still seems to me to be anti-idiomatic. Here i'd like to admit my ignorance, without agenda -- what are the circumstances in which one would make that statement?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...funny my interpretation goes exactly in the opposite sense you explained it..."it rains" reports no causal relations but the timeless acknowledgement of a true experience..."its (the verb) raining (the thing)" being an active process on the contrary requires further justification and further entanglement... Wink


You and i are often at odds with one another, and it often seems as if it is because our perspectives are mirror images of the other. In my interpretation the two parts of the statement: "it's raining", both parts act as verbs. "It is" and "raining" are both descriptors of two separate yet related processes.

And to take it a level further, that abbreviated '"is" refers to the situational and nominative, but not descriptive, connection between the processes , as such; both "it" and "raining". It also grammatically acknowledges their co-dependence, and/or the shared circumstance in which both are capable of manifesting together. A true experience does not seem to me to require a timeless, stable base, but rather that experience is the product of the interaction of two irreducible beings (understood as processes.

Both "its" and "raining" (rather than being

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 11:37 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
what are the circumstances in which one would make that statement?


If I was at a festival one weekend, and it rained all the time, when someone asked me about it, I would say that "it was raining the whole time".

If I wasn't there, but had heard from my friend who was, and was asked about it, I would say that "apparently it rained the whole time".

Or in other words, if I say "it's raining" it implies that I am in the rain, while "it rains" does not. (My take on it).
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 09:01 pm
@Razzleg,
"it rains" is intemporal on my take not because the process is not there but because the process is irrelevant for the fact which is nonetheless...thus meaning that being a process won't change the matter that "it rains"..."it rains" reports the solid acknowledgement that rain can be, that there is such a thing like rain...while "its raining" on the other hand reports a down to earth experience inserted in a contextual timely situated process...but hey Razz I love diversity of opinion, I sure can see why you think the way you do ! Wink
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2012 07:04 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:
. . . "it rains" is not grammatically incorrect, it still seems to me to be anti-idiomatic. Here i'd like to admit my ignorance, without agenda -- what are the circumstances in which one would make that statement?
A: Tell me one thing that happens when water vapour condenses out of the atmosphere.
B: It rains.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2012 05:17 pm
@ughaibu,
It rains every time I schedule a picnic.
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 06:25:06