Free Will

[Enki]

As I have explained previously -
I fully understand the logic you adhere to, and why you come to your conclusions.

But the fact is that the logic fails to explain the reality.

It seems to me to explain the reality very well. No one that I know has been able to alter any decision made by going back to the exact moment of the decision. That would indeed lead to a chaotic roller coaster ride.

Your short sighted logic confines our lives to be a roller coaster ride driven by inevitable reactions to past events with no means of changing direction.

How so? Why should the logic of making a deterministic decision at a certain point not allow for the possibility of changing direction at another point?

You tell me that every choice I make could not possibly have been any different, yet you accuse me of such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency.  Your logic implies that such things as dishonesty, arrogance, or complacency are just inevitable consequences which could not possibly have occurred any other way.

That's what the idea of determinism entails.

When you accuse me of these things, do you honestly believe that I could not possibly have chosen to do them differently?

But, by pointing out these features, it might be that you could choose to do them differently in future, possibly influenced by the feedback on this forum.

You need to come to terms with reality - the reality which identifies the real you and the real me as free spirits - not just lumps of reconstituted star debris driven by nothing but physically defined material reactions with no will of our own.

"Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a desire among the various desires present." Wiki. I see no reason to think that one's will isn't the result of material reactions within the brain. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that will is as described above. So that does seem to be the reality. You, on the other hand, have given no evidence at all for your 'free spirits' or for your idea of a 'you' which is any more than a functioning brain.

It seems, from your entrenched position, that you see logic and evidence as your enemies.
 

[Stranger]

I have the freedom to make a different choice because I am not a robotic machine

You certainly post like one.   

If you could choose differently in exactly the same circumstances with exactly the same in formation and in in exactly the same state of mind, then you'd be behaving, at least in part, for no reason at all (randomly). That isn't freedom.

[Alan Burns]

Which is another false analogy or misrepresentation. It's not that you are forced along a track no matter what you might want or choose. It's that what you want and choose is because of reasons, i.e. the person you are, which got be be that way for reasons too (nature, nurture, and experience). Being 'free' of those things would mean being 'free' of being you, which is nonsensical. To the extent these things do not determine what you want or choose, you must be acting randomly (for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by several people).

In a materialist scenario, what you label as nature, nurture and experience can only exist as pre programmed neural pathways in a material brain, which aptly verifies the analogy to a roller coaster with no means of changing direction.

The reality is that knowledge of nature, nurture and past experience will exist in my conscious awareness before I invoke a choice.  They will influence my choice but I contest whether they totally dictate a conscious choice.  Can you appreciate the difference between knowledge and information?

Then we have the scenario where you actively contemplate a situation and draw logical conclusions.  Are nature, nurture and past experience alone sufficient to drive the entire conscious process of contemplation and making a valid conclusion?  This is particularly problematic when you consider the postulation from Torridon that our apparently conscious choices are already defined before they emerge into our conscious awareness.  It beggars belief to imagine how any valid logical conclusion can be achieved without any means to consciously direct the thought processes involved.

[Gordon]

In a materialist scenario, what you label as nature, nurture and experience can only exist as pre programmed neural pathways in a material brain, which aptly verifies the analogy to a roller coaster with no means of changing direction.

You do love introducing terms that you regard as pejoratives, such as "pre-programmed" that are redundant since "neural pathways in a material brain" is sufficient: you are, yet again, conflating fatalism with determinism.

The reality is that knowledge of nature, nurture and past experience will exist in my conscious awareness before I invoke a choice.  They will influence my choice but I contest whether they totally dictate a conscious choice.  Can you appreciate the difference between knowledge and information?

You're again conflating things here, since the processing of information using the "neural pathways in a material brain" results in knowledge: they are both part of the same paradigm.

Then we have the scenario where you actively contemplate a situation and draw logical conclusions.  Are nature, nurture and past experience alone sufficient to drive the entire conscious process of contemplation and making a valid conclusion?

Yes.

This is particularly problematic when you consider the postulation from Torridon that our apparently conscious choices are already defined before they emerge into our conscious awareness.  It beggars belief to imagine how any valid logical conclusion can be achieved without any means to consciously direct the thought processes involved.

As I have mentioned before: I have an inherent revulsion to certain foods that I cannot overcome no matter how hard I might "consciously direct the thought processes involved".

[Sebastian Toe]

Knowledge resides in the human soul.

How do you know that?

[Stranger]

In a materialist scenario...

More misrepresentation.

...what you label as nature, nurture and experience can only exist as pre programmed neural pathways in a material brain, which aptly verifies the analogy to a roller coaster with no means of changing direction.

No, it doesn't. More evidence that you don't understand the argument.

The reality is that knowledge of nature, nurture and past experience will exist in my conscious awareness before I invoke a choice.

More misunderstanding and an utterly absurd claim. It's not about knowledge of nature, nurture, and experience, and certainly not in your conscious mind. You haven't anything like full knowledge of your nature, nurture, and experience. How could you? Your conscious memory (just like everybody else's) is far from complete and very far from fully accurate and that could only ever cover nurture and experience at the concious level, even if it were complete.

The point is that your whole personality, how you make choices, everything that makes you the person you are, both consciously and subconsciously must have come about through some combination of nature, nurture, and experience because there's nothing else that can have possibly made a difference (regardless of whether we are thinking about an entirely material person or including some non-material soul). If there's some part of you that isn't a result of those things, it must be just random.

Then we have the scenario where you actively contemplate a situation and draw logical conclusions.

And the way in which you do that is because of who you are, which is, in turn, because of nature, nurture, and experience. Have you not even heard of the nature versus nurture debate?

It beggars belief to imagine how any valid logical conclusion can be achieved without any means to consciously direct the thought processes involved.

Another argument from personal incredulity and also irrelevant. The extent to which conciousness is involved is simply irrelevant to the main point. You think the way you do because of the person you are and the experiences you've had - including what you've learnt or not learned about logic.

[Alan Burns]

You're again conflating things here, since the processing of information using the "neural pathways in a material brain" results in knowledge: they are both part of the same paradigm.

You cannot claim this unless you can define what conscious knowledge comprises in material terms and how it differs from information being processed in a computer's memory.
Knowledge is awareness of information - not the information iteslf.

[Alan Burns]

More misrepresentation.

No, it doesn't. More evidence that you don't understand the argument.

More misunderstanding and an utterly absurd claim. It's not about knowledge of nature, nurture, and experience, and certainly not in your conscious mind. You haven't anything like full knowledge of your nature, nurture, and experience. How could you? Your conscious memory (just like everybody else's) is far from complete and very far from fully accurate and that could only ever cover nurture and experience at the concious level, even if it were complete.

The point is that your whole personality, how you make choices, everything that makes you the person you are, both consciously and subconsciously must have come about through some combination of nature, nurture, and experience because there's nothing else that can have possibly made a difference (regardless of whether we are thinking about an entirely material person or including some non-material soul). If there's some part of you that isn't a result of those things, it must be just random.

And the way in which you do that is because of who you are, which is, in turn, because of nature, nurture, and experience. Have you not even heard of the nature versus nurture debate?

Another argument from personal incredulity and also irrelevant. The extent to which conciousness is involved is simply irrelevant to the main point. You think the way you do because of the person you are and the experiences you've had - including what you've learnt or not learned about logic.

No matter how you try, you still  can't differentiate the obvious difference between reaction and choice.  In your convoluted compatibalist version of determinism it still boils down to inevitable reactions as opposed to consciously driven choices.  The two are incompatible and always will be.  I hope and pray that you will one day come to appreciate the miraculous gift of free will which makes us truly human - and sets us free!

[Stranger]

No matter how you try, you still  can't differentiate the obvious difference between reaction and choice.

Neither can you. A choice is a reaction.

In your convoluted compatibalist version of determinism it still boils down to inevitable reactions as opposed to consciously driven choices.

False dichotomy fallacy. You have provided no actual reasoning as to why something can't be both. Actually, come to think of it, you've provided no actual reasoning full stop.

The two are incompatible and always will be.

Baseless assertion. And, of course, you simply ignored all the detail in my post that you clearly have no answers to and that showed, yet again, that you understand neither logic in general nor the specific argument you are up against.

[Stranger]

You cannot claim this unless you can define what conscious knowledge comprises in material terms...

Back to the glaring double standards. You are allowed to present nothing but gibberish, fallacies, and contradictory, vague hand-waving, while everybody who disagrees has to fully define everything. Matthew 7:5.

...and how it differs from information being processed in a computer's memory.
Knowledge is awareness of information - not the information iteslf.

You're just making definitions up to suit your own preconceived ideas again. Knowledge can be defined in several ways. Philosophically it's traditionally defined as "justified true belief". A belief is of course just information in your mind that you have classified as being a true representation of something.

[Gordon]

You cannot claim this unless you can define what conscious knowledge comprises in material terms and how it differs from information being processed in a computer's memory.
Knowledge is awareness of information - not the information iteslf.

I am not a computer, Alan: I can process information so that it becomes knowledge on that basis that I am justified in assuming what the information implies, and all I need for that is functioning biology. My conclusions are, of course, provisional and might be wrong since I can make mistakes and they are subject to limitations in my understanding, such as having insufficient previous knowledge or relevant experience in certain scenarios. I'd say that information and knowledge are part of the same paradigm when it comes to people using their brains, and that your attempt at a false dichotomy here is rather obvious.

Of course I may also process information that I'm not consciously aware of that nevertheless may influence my personal traits and biases.

 

[Alan Burns]

I am not a computer, Alan: I can process information so that it becomes knowledge on that basis that I am justified in assuming what the information implies, and all I need for that is functioning biology. My conclusions are, of course, provisional and might be wrong since I can make mistakes and they are subject to limitations in my understanding, such as having insufficient previous knowledge or relevant experience in certain scenarios. I'd say that information and knowledge are part of the same paradigm when it comes to people using their brains, and that your attempt at a false dichotomy here is rather obvious.

Of course I may also process information that I'm not consciously aware of that nevertheless may influence my personal traits and biases.

Very true Gordon - your are much more than a mere computer - you are not just a processor of information.
Computers are programmed to react to information, but they possess no knowledge.
The functioning biology in a material brain involves many millions of predictable material reactions, but individual material reactions alone do not define the single entity of conscious perception which turns information into verifiable knowledge.  Yes, the functioning brain processes information so that it can become knowledge - just as a functioning video screen processes data in a format which can be perceived by a consciously aware human being (with more processing done by the eye and associated brain cells before it can be consciously perceived).

[Gordon]

Very true Gordon - your are much more than a mere computer - you are not just a processor of information.

But I am a processor of information, it's just that I (like you) use biology instead of electronics: a biological computer, if you will.

Computers are programmed to react to information, but they possess no knowledge.

For humans, in order to acquire knowledge we need to process information: therefore, we too react to information.

The functioning biology in a material brain involves many millions of predictable material reactions, but individual material reactions alone do not define the single entity of conscious perception which turns information into verifiable knowledge.

Your 'single entity of consciousness' mantra seems to be drifting towards the fallacy of composition, again: it's just biology doing what it does.

Yes, the functioning brain processes information so that it can become knowledge - just as a functioning video screen processes data in a format which can be perceived by a consciously aware human being (with more processing done by the eye and associated brain cells before it can be consciously perceived).

Yipee - brains can be used to think about stuff arising from various information sources: we already know that, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

But I am a processor of information, it's just that I (like you) use biology instead of electronics: a biological computer, if you will.

In this context, the word "biology" is just a meaningless label which tells you nothing about how information gets transformed into conscious knowledge.

For humans, in order to acquire knowledge we need to process information: therefore, we too react to information.

And how does a reaction generate conscious knowledge? In materialistic terms it can only generate further reactions.

Your 'single entity of consciousness' mantra seems to be drifting towards the fallacy of composition, again: it's just biology doing what it does.

Like a computer, a material brain can generate many individual reactions, but a single entity of consciousness is not defined by reactions, but awareness of reactions.
Therein lies the hard problem of consciousness which is still a mystery.

[Stranger]

Computers are programmed to react to information, but they possess no knowledge.

Depends how you define knowledge - one of the definitions is 'Information held on a computer system.' There are also, of course, knowledge-based systems. If we take the philosophical definition of (propositional) knowledge (justified true belief), then it's some information you have, that you believe (have it tagged as true in some way) and have some justification for - all of which is information. You don't need to be consciously thinking about France or Paris to know that Paris is the capital of France - it's information stored in your brain that you can access as needed.

As is so often the case, you seem to want to just make up definitions (choice, control, freedom, and so on) that reinforce your baseless faith.

The functioning biology in a material brain involves many millions of predictable material reactions, but individual material reactions alone do not define the single entity of conscious perception which turns information into verifiable knowledge.

Another baseless assertion.

[Stranger]

In this context, the word "biology" is just a meaningless label which tells you nothing about how information gets transformed into conscious knowledge.

And your self-contradictory magic doesn't tell us that either. Matthew 7:5 again. Biology exists. Your claims are logically impossible.

And how does a reaction generate conscious knowledge? In materialistic terms it can only generate further reactions.

Is 'conscious knowledge' going to become another of your pointless mantras? All it means is information that represents knowledge (some information you think is true and that you have a justification for) that you happen to be consciously thinking about at some time.

Like a computer, a material brain can generate many individual reactions, but a single entity of consciousness is not defined by reactions, but awareness of reactions.

Yet another baseless assertion.

[jeremyp]

I have the freedom to make a different choice because I am not a robotic machine

Would you ever make a different choice though?

[Alan Burns]

Would you ever make a different choice though?

Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.
Because it is a choice, not a reaction.
I am able to use my God given freedom to choose rather than react.
The fact that I am free to speculate about this is sufficient to verify that I have the freedom to choose my own thoughts.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.
Because it is a choice, not a reaction.
I am able to use my God given freedom to choose rather than react.
The fact that I am free to speculate about this is sufficient to verify that I have the freedom to choose my own thoughts.

And you slip into your old infinite regress, since the choice of thoughts is a thought which is a choice which is a thought that is a choice which is...

[Stranger]

Of course I could have made a different choice under the same circumstances.

If everything was the same, the only way you could choose differently would be by being random.

Because it is a choice, not a reaction.

False dichotomy fallacy. A choice is a reaction to a set of circumstances that leads to the choice.

I am able to use my God given freedom to choose rather than react.

Meaningless assertion.

The fact that I am free to speculate about this is sufficient to verify that I have the freedom to choose my own thoughts.

Contradictory drivel. How do you choose your own thought? By thinking about it? How about you try to think about it for once in your life?

[Alan Burns]

And you slip into your old infinite regress, since the choice of thoughts is a thought which is a choice which is a thought that is a choice which is...

The regress stops with me - my conscious self.  I can invoke my own thoughts because I am not just a biological machine with no will of my own.

[Alan Burns]

Contradictory drivel. How do you choose your own thought? By thinking about it? How about you try to think about it for once in your life?

And what invokes the act of "trying" if I am just the result of endless chains of reaction?

[Stranger]

The regress stops with me - my conscious self.  I can invoke my own thoughts because I am not just a biological machine with no will of my own.

Just reasserting contradictory nonsense, is not going to make it any less nonsensical.

And what invokes the act of "trying" if I am just the result of endless chains of reaction?

Your mind. You'll either try or not as a reaction to the argument put to you. What you've done here is reacted with one of your endlessly repeated evasion tactics, which suggests fear or inability to actually take up the challenge.

[Nearly Sane]

The regress stops with me - my conscious self.  I can invoke my own thoughts because I am not just a biological machine with no will of my own.

Your invocation of a thought is a thought. Calling it an invocation doesn't change that. And since it is a thought would by your logic need a further invocation/thought creates the infinite regress.

[Alan Burns]

If everything was the same, the only way you could choose differently would be by being random.

So you keep saying, and in a world totally driven by past events you would be correct.

But my freedom to contradict you is my choice at this moment.
I could have chosen to ignore your post.
I could have chosen different words to reply.
I am not entirely driven by the past, because I have freedom to choose rather than react.
This is the reality I live in, and it is a reality which can't be written off by your presumption that we are totally driven by past events.
You need to realise that there is more to reality than a time dependent cause and effect scenario.
Our conscious selves exist and act in the present.
Our conscious selves define our present.
In a mechanistic cause and effect scenario there is no role for the conscious self, and there is no concept of the present.