Is free-will an illusion?

@Briancrc,

It is interesting that you consider that something called 'yourself' feels it is under attack, when from your point of view it could be argued that'self' is as illusory as 'free will' ! If you actually gave even that point some thought, rather than trotting out the slogans of scientism, you would be on the way to understanding where I am coming from, having been ( I suggest) a lot further down the line than you.

I don't need an argument for 'free will'. The utility of the concept is embedded in our common language and cultural practices. The onus is on those who would want to remove it and its social utility, to replace it with a viable alternative. Concepts stand or fall on the basis of their utility, and at the end of the day, concepts are all we've got !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Functional communication between two minds is exactly what we are engaging here... So I take it that you believe in minds, just like everybody else does, or you wouldn't post here. You wouldn't speak of "Descartes" as a source or locus for some set of ideas either.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Be stubborn all you want...it doesn't change an inch on what I wrote. Take it drop it I don't care. Someone will read it for what it is and that is my target audience. Thanks and goodbye !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

"Someone" = some mind... There's no way around it. :-)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

oh boy...you don't get that a mind without free will is nothing but experiencing...what can I do ? I cannot inject knowledge in that thick head of yours can I ? (yeah I referred to your "head" yaaay now make a party out of it)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The point is that, if you want to stop using the concept of mind, you will have to stop using words such as "I", "you", "someone" or "Descartes", because these IMPLY the concept of mind.

Good luck.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco,
Having replies that focus on the person making the argument and not the argument suggests that there is a lack of sufficient argument based on the premises established. I can feel attacked. I am a person. I have feelings. I do exist in a social environment that has taught me what its values are.

Quote:

@Briancrc,
What you don't seem to understand is

Quote:

@Briancrc,
You don't get it yet.

Quote:

The seeds of that futility lie in philosophical ignorance regarding usage of terms like 'existence'

I'm not bothered by this. I think my responses have generally centered on the premises of argument and have held a more respectful tone

Quote:

I agree with you completely on this.

Quote:

I bet we would agree on many things that a person could do, but shouldn't.

Quote:

You have latched on to some old world views that seem to have nothing to do with what I have said. But perhaps you could explain:

, although I did call into question your own understanding when I wrote

Quote:

Some day you may show the courage to admit that you do not know as much as you think you do about this field and spend a little while learning the important differences between S-R psychology and what followed from those early years.

But when you write:

Quote:

I don't need an argument for 'free will'. The utility of the concept is embedded in our common language and cultural practices.

This again seems to be calling Russell to respond,

Quote:

“It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty, and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.”

To me your conclusions seem to be arguments that are similar to ones that theists make when it is said that we must invoke a creative Mind (note the capital) to explain remaining questions in the theory of evolution. Now we have arguments for a creative mind (lowercase). For me, taking the feeling of agency prior to committing an act and giving it causal status is post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious argument. If that is as far as the conversation goes, then so be it, but I think there are far more questions to be asked, and I think that the questions are answerable.

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

To me your conclusions seem to be arguments that are similar to ones that theists make when it is said that we must invoke a creative Mind (note the capital) to explain remaining questions in the theory of evolution. Now we have arguments for a creative mind (lowercase).

An interesting comparison. I do agree that our mind works in Darwinian ways. How else could it work? This implies 1) an haphazard production of new "thoughts" (mostly unconscious IMO) and 2) a selection of those haphazard "thoughts" through a set of competitive processes (both conscious and unconscious IMO).

If this is the hypothesis, it follows that the mind MAY NOT require agency, since the great advantage of Darwinian systems is obviously that, like evolution, they do not require any central agency.

But the thing with us animals is that we move around. Hence decisions must be made all the time about where and what to do, ie to fight or to flee. You can't do both so a final arbitration must happen. A choice. The biosphere doesn't need to make choices, it can disagree with itself. In fact it does so all the time.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

On the contrary, I suggest that it is you who are playing a religious card by assuming your axioms are sacrosanct.

I have explained extensively elsewhere that as an atheist I have no doubt that 'God(s) exist' as functional concepts for believers, and that selective 'evidence' is irrelevent to that utility/existence. What actually matters is whether believers wish to impose their world view on atheists.

Now when it comes to believers in 'determinism' with respect to human behavior, I make the same argument. Delimited utility of behaviorism is one thing, but attempts at making it a universalistic principle is at best naive, and at worst borders on religious dogma.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

On the contrary, I suggest that it is you who are playing a religious card by assuming your axioms are sacrosanct.

Irony...thy name is IRONY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Nah... in your case .....WOODY .....as in... 🎶' It's The Woody Woodpecker's Song' 🎶

1 Reply

@fresco,

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRclpXQIsJ6iL6tmorvl0AtFZwqXCan9iKCQa9AUTCzWwDFjs5D

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

assuming your axioms are sacrosanct

You'll have to show me where that has occurred, because one of the assumptions I hold is philosophic doubt. I will be happy to change an opinion when evidence suggests doing so is advisable. Would you do the same? Would you revise your position on freewill if there was evidence that one's thoughts and actions occurred for lawful and orderly reasons?

Quote:

I have explained extensively elsewhere

In our discussions I do not recall seeing your position on this point. I do agree; be a good neighbor and what you do for yourself is your matter.

Quote:

Delimited utility of behaviorism is one thing, but attempts at making it a universalistic principle is at best naive, and at worst borders on religious dogma.

Yes, but generalization doesn't end at the point of someone's comfort level.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That's an interesting way that you summarized the position. I haven't seen it put that way before, but I like it.

Also,

Quote:

The biosphere doesn't need to make choices, it can disagree with itself. In fact it does so all the time.

Can you say a little more about this?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Real philosophical doubt would include an understading that 'evidence' is never completely 'objective'. Indeed at the level of the social sciences it may be that 'objectivity' is meaningless. You don't appear to have any appreciation of that issue and therefore I am wasting my time putting the pragmatists position.

Continue to go round in circles by all means, but not with me.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Can you say a little more about this?

What i mean is: there is an important difference between the darwinian system of evolution and the (probably darwinian) system of the human mind: the latter must decide where it wants to go. While evolution in the biosphere can pursue many different directions at the same time, human beings (like any animals) must pick ONE course of action. We individuals can't be divided, by definition, and hence we can't be in two different places at the same time.... As the Clash once famously asked, "should I stay or should I go?" The biosphere doesn't need to answer that question, and thus it doesn't need a fully integrated decision making system, but we DO.

That why we individual animals have a sense of agency even though the biosphere and evolution as a whole doesn't, IMO.

1 Reply

@fresco,

If that's the bar that you put on calling a view sacrosanct, then that is an exceptionally low bar. One always has to scrutinize the data. However, when looking for a pathway to the truth I follow the data; not faith. If you think this is an equivalency, then I respectfully disagree with you.

Fresco, you are not compelled to respond to anything I write. I would have thought that you would just stop writing when having lost the interest, but if you feel the need to declare that you are ending the conversation, then...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Thanks Olivier5.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Yet again, 'data' are never independent of observers perceptual set.
You don't seem to understand the implications of that. As for 'truth', even Woody Allen claims he did 'Truth 101'....apparently you did not ! Smile

And that does indeed constitute the end of responses to you on this thread, having fulfilled the A2K mission statement of advising on 'expert opinion'. Wink

1 Reply

http://www.charlesmacpherson.com/pub/images/shirt_iron_4.jpg

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know