Freewill vs. Determinism

But there were human rights activists who starved themselves to death - and ofcourse have died.

 

Yes, but they died by starving, they didn't just decide to die.

What I meant was that there are a number of ways one could choose to die if they had the will for it, but they can't just say "I'm going to die tonight" and then do it.

 

i don't think i ever mentioned someone willing themselves to die within a set time......i do see your point that we would still be subject to the laws affecting the body, but i was only trying to establish a difference between these laws and one's ability to choose one's actions.

 

Gotcha. I may have misinterpreted one of your posts.

 

Oh in that case, yea that can't happen .

 

it happens, freaker. i appreciate your views and i wouldn't mind hearing (reading) you re-response to my original question.

 

This may be your opinion, but it hasn't been established yet by scientific proof. Let's not confuse science with pseudoscience.

 

According to Chalmers, "the hard problem" is how "something as immaterial as consciousness" can arise from something as unconscious as matter". Philosopher Jerry Fodor agrees that "nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea how anything could be conscious." McGinn denies that the problem can be solved at all, and atheist guru Sam Harris is convinced that a lot of the naturalistic explanations that have been offered are pseudoscientific windowdressing for fundamental ignorance. An important group of brain researchers, including Penrose, Bohm, Jibu, and Vitiello make a case for quantum brain dynamics instead of the mechanical model you suggest.

 

yyyesaim -

I think so. I would say that the interactions of particles since the beginning of time could have predicted that a person would make that decision, since it was just a flow of energy in the brain.



Okie - I know it isn't completely scientific, but I think there are a number of logical problems with the concept of a soul. That I do not think that there are supernatural forces acting upon our consciousness is just my starting point for my view on this.

The problem with studying consciousness is that it is subjective. I cannot prove that someone else is conscious at all, I just have to assume so. What would a person without a conscious mind be like? Who knows? Do dogs have consciousness? Frogs? Bugs? What is different between what goes on inside us and what goes on inside a problem-solving computer? Why wouldn't something material be able to form consciousness?

 

what is the difference between a spec of sand and a single celled organism?

 

There you have it, folks.

 

Something is a spec of dust only in your eyes, so is it a "single celled organism" only in your eyes.

It is your mind that classifies, finds the difference between both based on physical characteristics or certain phenomena it classifies to that particular object in the study.

So, Lets hypothetically presuppose that consciousness is in existence, whether that is caused by matter or whether it is energy is a different story entirely. If we assume that there is consciousness then the only "consciousness" that we can truly presuppose is our own.

With that said, the true study of consciousness would have to start with oneself. How he views the world should be more important , because the differences like that single celled organism and dust is made by the human mind within him. therefore, if he starts to study the difference itself, then what he is truly doing is trying to figure out the nature of consciousness.

So I think, the important thing to think about here would be "why the difference" rather than "What the difference".

 

The problem here is the "choice" of "choicelessness" is a predetermined phenomena or whether there is really a choice.

 

I can't agree w/ the notion of hard determinism. I feel that hard determinism diminishes personal choice and completely opposes free will. If free will is diminished by hard determinism, why is hard determinism not accepted as a defense by criminals? After all, an accused rapist could blame his crimes on his bad genetics and upbringing if his father was the rapist of his mother and he was raised by her family as the unwanted by-product of his mother's shame. I don't think this would fly in any courtroom, because we hold that his actions were not ultimately determined by those factors but by his choices. Ultimately, he chose to rape his victims. If he tried to destroy evidence or killed his victims for fear of being caught, these actions illustrate that he had a choice and was trying to avoid punishment.

If anything, I believe there are influences on our decisions, but we have free will to choose our action. If one considers influences as weights and choices as balanced scales, outside influences may weigh down one side of the scale, but ultimately, we can choose either, although we may lean towards the weighted option. However, the weight imbalance does not determine we will pick that option. I guess I agree w/ compatibilism out of the choices, but I try not to think heavily on this debate b/c it gives me a headache after a while.

Peace and love

 

i appreciate the answer jedi, but i have no desire to debate it. the question was simply designed for someone with a different viewpoint than your's.

 

exactly, but most of the time we don't make a choice, and I think our society even understands that. For instance, we are inborn with some abilities, a successful salesman is someone who has a very good innate ability to convince and relate to people. Is it possible for someone to learn the same skills? yes, but it would be very hard for him to do. So it seems, without a choice, there is a predetermined result.

 

yea I was just saying what I wanted dude, not exactly looking for debate.

 

I have to disagree. The salesperson is a succesful salespercon if he chooses to become a salesperson. If he decides to become a con man, he may be equally successful or he may choose a field that has nothing to do w/ his natural abilities of convincing and relating to people, such as mathematics or biology.

Personally, I am good w/ presenting arguments from different view points. When I was younger, I wanted to use this skill in the courtroom. What I am majoring in now? Geology. My skills of bullshitting and creating convincing arguments are not as important as they are in law. Also, I have strong interests in history and psychology. Sure, there are many influences in my life, but ultimately, it is my choice to pursue the goal I pick, not one that is pre-determined.

I don't think there is a way to prove or disprove determinism and what degree it exists, if it exists at all. I guess I find it pointless to focus on this debate for long periods of time, b/c why would it matter? If everything is predetermined (hard), then we can do only what we can. If there is only free will, then we have a choice. If there is a middle ground, then we have some choice. If any of these philosophies are correct, arguing about it will not change the fact of what is true. It's like trying to use science to disprove God or theology to prove God's existence. It is as it is and debate does not change the fact of what is.

Peace and love

 

I would say that in the case you gave, the rapist made that choice, but it was predetermined that he would do so. He made the choice because he was in a certain place at a certain time, the electrons in his brain were going through certain motions. So in a way, he made a choice. And in a way, he didn't. I guess I would say that he didn't choose to make the choice.

To have a functioning society though, we have to assume that people make choices. Even if actions are predetermined, 20 years of a person's life would be different depending on whether they were in jail or not. And the jury is really predetermined to sentence this guy, so there's that.

I think that my problem with free will is this: What is will? What makes it more than just electrons moving in our brain? Can we choose to fire neurons and initiate thoughts and actions, or are they just natural continuations of previously fired neurons?

 

I think your idea of hard determinism makes life rather pointless. If my actions are predetermined, why does it matter what choice I make b/c I will make it no matter what. I cannot agree with this.

There is much more than just "electrons moving through the brain." Yes, brain chemistry has a very real effect on our decisions, but I am proof that brain chemistry does not determine our choices. When my brain chemistry is screwed up, I have unwanted suicidal thoughts which caused by this imbalance, even if "I" don't want to die. If brain chemistry completely determined my actions, I should have killed myself a long time ago when suicide would not leave my mind. However, there was something else going on, something that cannot be understood by the mind.

I am not going to convince you one way or the other. You have your opinions and that's fine. I *know* there is a spiritual aspect of myself b/c I have experienced. It is something you have to experience for yourself.

Peace and love