I don't think our consciousness does direct our decisions though. We are conscious of some of the factors that go into the decisions. But what being conscious is doing, if anything, is mysterious so far.All I mean is that if we have conscious desires--even if they originated in a non-conscious part of the brain--those conscious desires can then go on to influence future behaviors, whether those future behaviors themselves originate in our consciousnesses or not. (Did that make any sense?)
A theist could also say he has no control over what happens. Is he also a nihilist? Would a theist say god is in control or not?Interesting thought. But in the case of Christianity it doesn't work: to rightly reward or punish people who did good or bad, free will is needed. Only Libertarian Free Will would do. A good god couldn't rightly punish or reward us, it would be impossible. That's why we cannot be morally responsible as ordinarily understood. But humans do act responsibly because we are determined to do so. One does not have to believe in free will to have feelings of responsibility. We just don't consciously control it---and determinists know better than to claim that only free will can drive responsibilie behavior. It is inherent in our determining factors. Any failures in responsible behavior are determined abberrations and have nothing to do with free will. Lois Lois, the thing is the same words get used to mean different things. Free Will is one example. Moral responsibility is another. People believe we have a sort of moral responsibility, such that it would make sense, for a good god to punish or reward us after we are dead for what we have done. This makes no sense at all if we accept it is 100% a lottery as far as we are concerned, who gets to make which choices. It's 100% a lottery because our choices are 100% controlled by circumstances beyond our control, as we agree. It's desert based moral responsibility, as described above, that we cannot have. And this is the practical reason that it matters that we don't have Libertarian Free Will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfOMqehl-ZA
But humans do act responsibly because we are determined to do so. One does not have to believe in free will to have feelings of responsibility. We just don't consciously control it---and determinists know better than to claim that only free will can drive responsibilie behavior. It is inherent in our determining factors. Any failures in responsible behavior are determined abberrations and have nothing to do with free will.You are completely right that everything we do is determined, so also our feelings of free will and responsibility. But a meaningful concept of free will should do justice to the way we are using it in daily life. The obvious answer is: free will means to act because of our own reasons. If we are forced to do something, then we do not act from our own reasons. If somebody mentally is not able to act because of reasons, he is not culpable, and he might get treated in a psychiatric clinic, or just cared for. These differences can be made, and are not effected by the fact that we are determined at all. You cannot defend yourself for court by saying that you were determined, that you were forced by your brain. The so called 'discovery' of neurologists that some brain processes start before we are aware of corresponding feelings or decisions has nothing to do with the capability to act because of reasons.
All I mean is that if we have conscious desires--even if they originated in a non-conscious part of the brain--those conscious desires can then go on to influence future behaviors, whether those future behaviors themselves originate in our consciousnesses or not. (Did that make any sense?)Yep.
Please show evodence that free will exists ort hat our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism.Tim has said over and over that he doesn't believe in Libertarian Free Will. There is no contradiction with conscious decisions influencing behaviour and determinism. We make decisions and determining factors we are conscious of play into the decision. So here is an example: I see glass in the road, I steer my bike around the glass. I believe I steered my bike around the glass because I saw it and didn't want to go over it because of the risk of a puncture.
A couple of useful links: http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/philosophy/docs/bradley/determinism.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinismThanks for the link, did a quick scan of first pages - looks interesting and later I'll get back to it when I have the time to let it soak in. Yes the link on determinism is very good. The relevant form of determinism in the Free Will debate is Causal determinism.
Yep. Stick to defining determinism as causal determinism in this debate. The second link is about the dilemma of determinism. That gives the reasons why people think indeterminism is not relevant to Free Will (although too much of it in the wrong place would be damaging because there would not be reliable links between beliefs and desires and actions.) You imagine it's more complex but it isn't, it makes sense to assume determinism for practical purposes because indeterminism is irrelevant. The logical consequences of determinism are that if I had done otherwise either physical laws would be different or the distant past would have been different. This has implications for how we think and feel about moral responsibility, which is why it matters. On Compatibilist Free Will comparing choices which we view as Free and not Free and checking for the differences is the way forward. What else? This idea that "I didn't have to I wanted to" and "I wanted to I didn't have to" is useful. It's a simple check which works in a number of cases, what's wrong with that? And this is why I'm not responsible for giving the gunman my money, he forced me to do it. Compatibilist Free Choices are choices free from unwelcome constraints. So the threat from the gunman is an unwelcome constraint. But my wanting to give the bike to the school is not. Your objection to this line of thinking about compatibilist Free Will was this"Be careful with concepts and the words in which we express them."good advice.
It's like using Schrödinger's cat to explain event's in the macro world a la DeepakThat really is quite ridiculous. It's down to earth checking examples and checking the difference. And it's ironic because the explanations for events in the macro world are causal, which of course is what causal determinism is based upon. It's you who is trying to bring Schrodinger's cat into explanations of events in the macro world. A couple more useful links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT6DKn6ZJso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhoBDlu7j0E
Please show evodence that free will exists ort hat our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism.Tim has said over and over that he doesn't believe in Libertarian Free Will. There is no contradiction with conscious decisions influencing behaviour and determinism. We make decisions and determining factors we are conscious of play into the decision. So here is an example: I see glass in the road, I steer my bike around the glass. I believe I steered my bike around the glass because I saw it and didn't want to go over it because of the risk of a puncture. All of which had its determining influences. You do not steer around the glass in a vacuum. There are many factors that bring you to the "decision" to steer around it--most of which you are unaware. You will drive through the glass if other factors you are unaware of make you careless and impulsive at that moment, for example. Lois
I don't think our consciousness does direct our decisions though. We are conscious of some of the factors that go into the decisions. But what being conscious is doing, if anything, is mysterious so far.All I mean is that if we have conscious desires--even if they originated in a non-conscious part of the brain--those conscious desires can then go on to influence future behaviors, whether those future behaviors themselves originate in our consciousnesses or not. (Did that make any sense?) IMO, all conscious desires come from factors we have no control over. They have to originate somewhere. We can consciously be aware of factors operating without being able to control them. We may think we are consciously deciding to take a course of action because we are aware of certain factors operating but the motivation to act in any way is not consciously controlled. In fact, we are so primed to attribute our actions to conscious decision making that within a fraction a second of performing an act we have made up a story for ourselves as to how we made the decision consciously. Lois
Please show evodence that free will exists ort hat our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism. We know for a fact that dwterminism is true. So far, free will is without evidence of any kind. It is exactly on the same plane as claims that a god exists and there is exactly the same amunt of evidence for it. Both are empty claims for which other explanations that have evidence in their corners is available.Personally, I don't see any contradiction between determinism and the idea that we have some conscious control of our destiny. At bottom, it may all be predetermined (with some randomness thrown in), but that's no reason to conclude that our consciousness can't direct our actions. It's my opinion that they don't but we have convinced ourselves that they do. Our consciousness has an origin, and that origin is a result of a combination of factors beyond our control and awareness. Lois
Please show evodence that free will exists ort hat our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism.Tim has said over and over that he doesn't believe in Libertarian Free Will. There is no contradiction with conscious decisions influencing behaviour and determinism. We make decisions and determining factors we are conscious of play into the decision. So here is an example: I see glass in the road, I steer my bike around the glass. I believe I steered my bike around the glass because I saw it and didn't want to go over it because of the risk of a puncture. All of which had its determining influences. You do not steer around the glass in a vacuum. There are many factors that bring you to the "decision" to steer around it--most of which you are unaware. You will drive through the glass if other factors you are unaware of make you careless and impulsive at that moment, for example. Lois Right. We are in complete agreement. When will you be determined to understand that I wonder? Now say I went over the glass because I was "careless and impulsive". Don't you see that is still a causal explanation, as you rightly say I'm unaware of all the factors that went into me being careless and impulsive but still it's an ordinary causal explanation.
I don't think our consciousness does direct our decisions though. We are conscious of some of the factors that go into the decisions. But what being conscious is doing, if anything, is mysterious so far.All I mean is that if we have conscious desires--even if they originated in a non-conscious part of the brain--those conscious desires can then go on to influence future behaviors, whether those future behaviors themselves originate in our consciousnesses or not. (Did that make any sense?) IMO, all conscious desires come from factors we have no control over. And IMO and Bugs and GdB's and Tim's. We agree Lois.
They have to originate somewhere.The big bang :-)
We can consciously be aware of factors operating without being able to control them.The factors are doing the controlling and the factors are us. So we are in control in a sense. Do you see?
We may think we are consciously deciding to take a course of action because we are aware of certain factors operating but the motivation to act in any way is not consciously controlled.The motivation to act is controlled by factors we are conscious of (sometimes) . These factors have their origins in the past and come from causes that we are unaware of. So can we agree?
In fact, we are so primed to attribute our actions to conscious decision making that within a fraction a second of performing an act we have made up a story for ourselves as to how we made the decision consciously.I think we do sometimes do that. But other times there was a process before the act which we are aware of and did play into why we acted that way.
Lois, I think where you go wrong, is not in your steadfast claim that all of our behavior is determined. I am with you on that. Where I think that you go wrong is in going an extra, indefensible, step, in claiming that any awareness or conscious action, on our part, can play no part in the myriad of determining factors for our behavior. The Libet experiments are completely insufficient, by themselves, to jump to such a conclusion. What you sometimes claim requires something beyond saying "Perceiving one's self as having libertarian free will, is illusory.. In that claim I'm with you. But you have also seemed to claim, at times, that everything, that we are ever aware of, and every action that we consciously take or perceive, can have no influence on our subsequent behavior. I can't be with you on that. It is an "extraordinary" (I say euphemistically) claim for which you supply no evidence.
Personally, I don't see any contradiction between determinism and the idea that we have some conscious control of our destiny. At bottom, it may all be predetermined (with some randomness thrown in), but that's no reason to conclude that our consciousness can't direct our actions.Well said. ~ ~ ~
In terms of that thing I've said before: I am no more controlled by determinism than a fish is controlled by water. Determinism doesn't claim we are determined by the atmosphere. You apparently don't knowthe first thing about detrminism. Anyone who does would never make such an inane statement.That's another thing no person who knows the first thing about determinism--or rational thought--would say or even think OH jezz, no wonder discussing this with you makes no sense for either of us... 'atmosphere' :lol: You are way too tightly woven into your conviction - on this topic you remind me more of a rabid fundamentalist preacher all the time. Or perhaps, psikeyhackr regarding the World Trade Center collapse. ~ ~ ~
---and determinists know better than to claim that only free will can drive responsibilie behavior.But no one's been claiming that! ~ ~ ~
I don't think our consciousness does direct our decisions though. We are conscious of some of the factors that go into the decisions. But what being conscious is doing, if anything, is mysterious so far.All I mean is that if we have conscious desires--even if they originated in a non-conscious part of the brain--those conscious desires can then go on to influence future behaviors, whether those future behaviors themselves originate in our consciousnesses or not. (Did that make any sense?) More than much of the other stuff I read. ~ ~ ~
The logical consequences of determinism are that if I had done otherwise either physical laws would be different or the distant past would have been different. This has implications for how we think and feel about moral responsibility, which is why it matters.Maybe it's this constant harking back to "the distant past" that disturbs me. As if that's all we are. I don't at all deny the constraints the distant past has put on who/what I am. But, it seems to relegate the impacts of my constant interaction with the here and now, (actions that mold not just future events that in turn impact me, but who/what I will be), into irrelevance. Worse it seems to sidestep that aspect of living our lives all together. {DETERMINISM, by Raymond D. Bradley was interesting enough. Read it, slept on it, read it again, also watched Dennett's lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E - but you know after awhile for my lil head it all melts into gobbledegook. Perhaps I need to rustle up a little weed to smoke and give it try.} ~ ~ ~
I don't think our consciousness does direct our decisions though. We are conscious of some of the factors that go into the decisions. But what being conscious is doing, if anything, is mysterious so far.All I mean is that if we have conscious desires--even if they originated in a non-conscious part of the brain--those conscious desires can then go on to influence future behaviors, whether those future behaviors themselves originate in our consciousnesses or not. (Did that make any sense?) IMO, all conscious desires come from factors we have no control over.I don't disagree with that either - but again I feel like the impacts of "feedbacks" get totally ignored in all this philosophizing. And to me that's where the interesting mystery resides. ~ ~ ~ Regarding various Lois quotes I don't feel like copying - to me it seems that she ignores feedbacks. I also notice she still hasn't fixed her signature, hmmm, perhaps feedbacks are irrelevant to her. ;-P ~ ~ ~ The pragmatic needs of living an engaged life and pursuing goals, even if very vague ones, demands exercising decisions we learn to moderate - a "will" if not a "free" one. Does that make any sense?
That is:
even if not a free one.
Maybe it's this constant harking back to "the distant past" that disturbs me. As if that's all we are.OK. Well that's a misunderstanding. We are everything we are now. The reason for the harking back to the distant past is to make it crystal clear that what we are now depends upon circumstances not of our choosing, because that is important when it comes to thinking about praise, blame, fairness, guilt etc. But it's not to take anything away from the importance of our choices.
I don't at all deny the constraints the distant past has put on who/what I am.If you seriously don't deny it then what I've been saying follows, so see if it makes sense this time: If the distant past had been appropriately different you would be a murderer on death row. If a murderer on death row had an appropriately different distant past he would not have committed his crime. That logically follows from determinism. The only way it might not is if there are no possible causal conditions that combined with your genetic make up would have produced that result. But then you just got lucky to get the genes you got. :-) This is very important because we realise that what we are and what we get to do is sheer luck in the sense I'm describing to you.
But, it seems to relegate the impacts of my constant interaction with the here and now, (actions that mold not just future events that in turn impact me, but who/what I will be), into irrelevance.OK, well the answer is it doesn't. The interactions now have just as much impact as ever.
Worse it seems to sidestep that aspect of living our lives all together.The answer is it doesn't.
{DETERMINISM, by Raymond D. Bradley was interesting enough. Read it, slept on it, read it again, also watched Dennett's lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E - but you know after awhile for my lil head it all melts into gobbledegook. Perhaps I need to rustle up a little weed to smoke and give it try.}Both are v good. ~ ~ ~
I don't disagree with that either - but again I feel like the impacts of "feedbacks" get totally ignored in all this philosophizing. And to me that's where the interesting mystery resides.It doesn't. Feedback becomes a determining factor playing into future choices. Determinism is just a framework for all this to play out in. As long as it's all possible without the need for multiple possible futures that can be arrived at from the distant past there is no problem.
The pragmatic needs of living an engaged life and pursuing goals, even if very vague ones, demands exercising decisions we learn to moderate - a "will" if not a "free" one. Does that make any sense?Yep definitely.
You are way too tightly woven into your conviction - on this topic you remind me more of a rabid fundamentalist preacher all the time. Or perhaps, psikeyhackr regarding the World Trade Center collapse.Now, that is a pair of insults! :lol:
Personally, I don't see any contradiction between determinism and the idea that we have some conscious control of our destiny. At bottom, it may all be predetermined (with some randomness thrown in), but that's no reason to conclude that our consciousness can't direct our actions.It's my opinion that they don't but we have convinced ourselves that they do. Our consciousness has an origin, and that origin is a result of a combination of factors beyond our control and awareness. Lois All I'm saying is that, although our conscious thoughts ultimately originate from non-conscious processes, those thoughts nonetheless do affect our behavior--especially in the longer-term sense. It's the same as saying that my device is powered by a battery, even though the energy in that battery ultimately originated in the Big Bang.
... Look at free will the way we look at evolution...You can only do that to a certain extent. Organisms evolve due to traits that enable them to survive to the point of reproduction, in certain environmental conditions, in which others don't, as effectively, survive to reproduction. But they don't "evolve" due to ontogenicl contingencies the same way that behavior does.
... Do you think animals have made conscious choices and changed the arc of evolution?Uh, yeah. How do you think we human animals got here? (post edited to change word to "ontogenic" from the erroneous original word used)
You are way too tightly woven into your conviction - on this topic you remind me more of a rabid fundamentalist preacher all the time. Or perhaps, psikeyhackr regarding the World Trade Center collapse.Now, that is a pair of insults! :lol: Yea, sorry, I can be a pecker-head sometimes. :-/ There's just something about that absolutism… >:( I been pre-determined to bristle at such - most the time other determining factors outweigh those determining factors, which helps me moderate those impulses and refrain from such childishness, yet other times yet other determining factors outweigh those determining factors, and who knows which color of my spectrum might comes through. sometimes they don't and it's just my regular determined me. :blank: Guess what I'm trying to get at is that it seems to me we are immersed in determining factors on every level from what species; race; health; blood; place; time we were born into… then the here and now stuff of circumstances; who's company you're in, your mood, and on and on and on and on and on To the point that all those determining factors get lost in the sauce. What decides which determining factors rule ? That's where something else comes into play……………………………………………………….
:lol:Do you think animals have made conscious choices and changed the arc of evolution?Uh, yeah. How do you think we human animals got here?
Guess what I'm trying to get at is that it seems to me we are immersed in determining factors on every level from what species; race; health; blood; place; time we were born into… then the here and now stuff of circumstances; who's company you're in, your mood, and on and on and on and on and on To the point that all those determining factors get lost in the sauce. What decides which determining factors rule ? That's where something else comes into play……………………………………………………….:question: