Free Will

[Alan Burns]

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.

It suggests that I have the freedom to contradict you based upon my own consciously driven thought processes rather than the unavoidable reaction to past events.

And in your scenario, what would make your unavoidable reactions somehow superior to my unavoidable reactions?  Is the act of judgement also just another unavoidable reaction?

[Stranger]

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.

Yes - and you either chose to write this entirely for reasons or it involved some randomness. You need logic to counter that not endless, pointless baseless assertions and gibberish.

I am not entirely driven by the past, because I have freedom to choose rather than react.

Nonsensical assertion (again). Of course you can choose to do what you want but that is a reaction (in this case to what I wrote) and you couldn't choose what you wanted to do the most - that would be another infinite regress.

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.

More nonsensical foot-stamping. The problem with the present is that it's logically meaningless - regardless of 'mechanistic cause and effect'. You are either a creature of cause and effect or one that involves randomness. Asserting that we exist in a logically undefined 'present' means exactly nothing - it's just gibberish.

[Stranger]

It suggests that I have the freedom to contradict you based upon my own consciously driven thought processes rather than the unavoidable reaction to past events.

False dichotomy fallacy (again).

And in your scenario, what would make your unavoidable reactions somehow superior to my unavoidable reactions?  Is the act of judgement also just another unavoidable reaction?

The nature of the thought processes involved, of course. How would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help in deciding which argument was 'superior'?

[Alan Burns]

False dichotomy fallacy (again).

The nature of the thought processes involved, of course. How would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help in deciding which argument was 'superior'?

When every event in a thought process is entirely driven by previous events, there can be no possibility for any objective judgement to take place.  With thought patterns entirely dictated before we think them, how can they be verified as logical?

[Stranger]

False dichotomy fallacy (again).

The nature of the thought processes involved, of course. How would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help in deciding which argument was 'superior'?

When every event in a thought process is entirely driven by previous events, there can be no possibility for any objective judgement to take place.

Try answering the question I actually asked. This is just another assertion apparently based on nothing but a personal incredulity fallacy.

With thought patterns entirely dictated before we think them, how can they be verified as logical?

If our thoughts do not happen entirely for reasons, they can have nothing to do with logic. Again: how would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help?

[Alan Burns]

If our thoughts do not happen entirely for reasons, they can have nothing to do with logic. Again: how would your self-contradictory nonsense version of 'freedom' in any way help?

I put it to you that the consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes is essential to be able to come to any verifiable conclusion.  Yes, there are reasons behind our thought processes.  These reasons exist in our conscious awareness, but if such reasons are just unavoidable reactions to past events there can be no objective verification for the validity of any resulting conclusions.

[Gordon]

I put it to you that the consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes is essential to be able to come to any verifiable conclusion.  Yes, there are reasons behind our thought processes.  These reasons exist in our conscious awareness, but if such reasons are just unavoidable reactions to past events there can be no objective verification for the validity of any resulting conclusions.

I'm assuming that the argumentum ad consequentiam is the fallacy du jour (though I suspect personal incredulity isn't that far behind).

[Stranger]

I put it to you that the consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes is essential to be able to come to any verifiable conclusion.

And I reject it on the grounds that "consciously driven freedom to drive your own thought processes" is a nonsense phrase and, to the extent I can fit it to anything in reality, it's irrelevant. There is no dichotomy between concious choice and determinism.

Yes, there are reasons behind our thought processes.  These reasons exist in our conscious awareness, but if such reasons are just unavoidable reactions to past events there can be no objective verification for the validity of any resulting conclusions.

Another totally baseless assertion. And you're still just expressing your own incredulity about the logical position, not telling us how your nonsense, self-contradictory version of 'freedom' would help in any way. Of course you can't actually do that because it is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless. Your inability to express how it would help, rather than just expressing incredulity about the alternative, should be telling you something...

[torridon]

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.

We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality.  This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually.  We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually.  I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really.  The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us.  But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise.  And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight.  Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.

[SusanDoris]

We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality.  This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually.  We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually.  I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really.  The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us.  But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise.  And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight.  Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.

Well said, as always.

Personally, I can only hope that enough members of AB's family see the glaring flaws and fallacies in his thinking.

[Sriram]

We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality.  This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually.  We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually.  I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really.  The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us.  But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise.  And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight.  Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.

Yes. Reality is not something that we are able to or capable of perceiving.  This is something that has been known for centuries.

That also introduces the doubt that what we perceive as an established scientific fact need not really be what we think it is. 

The intuitive impression that  the world is not what it seems and that there are hidden powers and forces beyond our comprehension that actually influence the world, is therefore not wrong!  We may call it by whatever name and imagine it in whatever form...   That is irrelevant.   

[Stranger]

Yes. Reality is not something that we are able to or capable of perceiving.  This is something that has been known for centuries.

That also introduces the doubt that what we perceive as an established scientific fact need not really be what we think it is. 

You seem to have entirely missed the point. It is through science (and reasoning in the case of 'free will') that we have found that some of our intuitive ideas are wrong.

The philosophical question of whether what we are dealing with is actually reality is a different matter. It's also rather pointless because if we're not dealing with reality, we might as well be, because it's still inescapable and consistent enough to be investigate through science and reasoning.

The intuitive impression that  the world is not what it seems and that there are hidden powers and forces beyond our comprehension that actually influence the world, is therefore not wrong!

When you use the word 'therefore' it's kind of conventional to precede it with some sort of reasoning or justification for what follows. Baseless assertions are not reasoning or justifications.

[Alan Burns]

We all have an intuition of living in the present moment. It is a sense that our minds create, it is not something with objective reality.  This sums up all that your rationale boils down to - this is how it feels, so this is how it must be, notwithstanding the fact that science has track record in puncturing our handy illusions and hubristic beliefs. The Earth feels flat and it feels stationary, but we've all come to terms with the fact that is isn't, actually.  We feel like we live in the present moment, but we don't, actually.  I feel like my fingers are touching the keyboard to type these words, but they aren't, really.  The common everyday perceptions that minds have evolved as a means to simplify matters mask an underlying reality that is often counter intuitive; these perceptions make complex reality more navigable for us.  But that doesn't mean we lack the intellectual resource to build a rich abstract understanding of the reality from which our perceptions and beliefs arise.  And this is all we've seen from you, a five year long foot stamp denying the validity or worth of any deeper insight.  Free will, as a concept, is slowly going the same way as many of our other perceptions and beliefs; we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that a deterministic functioning brain must mean a deterministic mind, and that to be free of the principle of cause and effect would mean random behaviours. We've come to terms with the fact that the Earth is not flat and is nothing special, we've come to terms with the fact humans weren't 'placed' on Earth, objects of special divine creation, but evolved quite naturally within a primate lineage under particular selection pressures of the Pleistocene, and we can also come to terms with the loss of our intuition of free will, given time.

Thanks for another well written, well thought out response Torri

There is so much to comment on in this - it is difficult to know where to start!

I agree that science has shown the that our perception of reality can be mistaken in some cases - but certainly not all.  We can at least agree that our human ability to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions is a reality.  It is these abilities which have facilitated our human endeavours to seek to know more about ourselves and the world we live in.  Such abilities would appear to be unique to the human race with no evidence of any other species seeking such knowledge - or having the ability to seek such knowledge.  You may well conclude that this unique ability can be explained by us having "bigger brains" to quote Richard Dawkins.  My own view is that our unique abilities to think, to contemplate  and to draw conclusions require the essential ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns rather than have our thoughts entirely dictated by past events with no means of control.  Your own post aptly demonstrates your own ability to consciously think things out and draw conclusions (even wrong conclusions  )

Can you honestly conclude that you can consciously compose such a post if every event in your brain is just an uncontrollable reaction to past events?
Or is there another explanation which is beyond our limited comprehension?

[Stranger]

My own view is that our unique abilities to think, to contemplate  and to draw conclusions require the essential ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns rather than have our thoughts entirely dictated by past events with no means of control.

"With no means of control" is simply wrong. Nothing about determinism rules out control - and no, you don't get to redefine it to mean your self-contradictory version of 'freedom'.

The phrase "ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns" is all but meaningless waffle. We can think and draw conclusions. Conciousness plays some sort of role but probably not as much as as it seems or that you'd like, however, its exact role is completely irrelevant to the basic argument about determinism.

Your own post aptly demonstrates your own ability to consciously think things out and draw conclusions (even wrong conclusions 

Nobody has ever questioned the ability to think things out and draw conclusions.

Can you honestly conclude that you can consciously compose such a post if every event in your brain is just an uncontrollable reaction to past events?

[misrepresentation struck out]

It's very easy to draw such a conclusion. Your only objections (once again) consist of incredulity with a side helping of misrepresentation.

[Alan Burns]

"With no means of control" is simply wrong. Nothing about determinism rules out control - and no, you don't get to redefine it to mean your self-contradictory version of 'freedom'.

The phrase "ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns" is all but meaningless waffle. We can think and draw conclusions. Conciousness plays some sort of role but probably not as much as as it seems or that you'd like, however, its exact role is completely irrelevant to the basic argument about determinism.

Nobody has ever questioned the ability to think things out and draw conclusions.
[misrepresentation struck out]

It's very easy to draw such a conclusion. Your only objections (once again) consist of incredulity with a side helping of misrepresentation.

But if everything is defined by inevitable chain reactions to past events, where is the source of control?

[torridon]

Thanks for another well written, well thought out response Torri

There is so much to comment on in this - it is difficult to know where to start!

I agree that science has shown the that our perception of reality can be mistaken in some cases - but certainly not all.  We can at least agree that our human ability to think, to contemplate and to draw conclusions is a reality.  It is these abilities which have facilitated our human endeavours to seek to know more about ourselves and the world we live in.  Such abilities would appear to be unique to the human race with no evidence of any other species seeking such knowledge - or having the ability to seek such knowledge.  You may well conclude that this unique ability can be explained by us having "bigger brains" to quote Richard Dawkins.  My own view is that our unique abilities to think, to contemplate  and to draw conclusions require the essential ability to consciously control and manipulate our thought patterns rather than have our thoughts entirely dictated by past events with no means of control.  Your own post aptly demonstrates your own ability to consciously think things out and draw conclusions (even wrong conclusions 

Can you honestly conclude that you can consciously compose such a post if every event in your brain is just an uncontrollable reaction to past events?
Or is there another explanation which is beyond our limited comprehension?

Every event in my brain is 'uncontrollable'. When was the last time you controlled your brain function ? Can you alter the function of any of your synapses such that your brain function is changed ?  The idea that we can control our brain function makes no sense; for that to be possible would imply that a brain needs a brain in order to control it, which means that the controlling brain needs a controlling brain controller to control it, and you end up vanishing in an infinite regress of controllers.  That is all spurious conceptualising. The feeling of control is something that emerges out of brain function. 

Likewise, the claim that our reactions are not inevitable is also baseless. When was the last time you saw something beautiful and chose to find it ugly. When was the last time you looked up at the sky and decided to see it as green ?  We might make complex choices, but all such choices derive from fundamental reactions which are and must be, inevitable in nature. The resolving of a choice in a mind is the consequential outcome of billions of neural events in a brain, not a single one of which can we 'control'.

[Stranger]

But if everything is defined by inevitable chain reactions to past events, where is the source of control?

Your mind. It controls your actions. That isn't affected by determinism. Your mind is a complex information gathering, processing, choice-making, and control device. What makes no sense is controlling your own thought process, which, apart from anything else, leads to an infinite regress.

And, as I said, you can't (as you've attempted in the past) just redefine the word to mean your impossible version of 'freedom'.

[Alan Burns]

Your mind. It controls your actions. That isn't affected by determinism. Your mind is a complex information gathering, processing, choice-making, and control device. What makes no sense is controlling your own thought process, which, apart from anything else, leads to an infinite regress.

And, as I said, you can't (as you've attempted in the past) just redefine the word to mean your impossible version of 'freedom'.

If "the mind" is just a lump of matter being acted upon by reactions to past events which cannot be changed, there is no source of control.  Any outcome will be an unintended consequence to events beyond any form of control. 

In this scenario, how can conscious intent come to fruition?

You are trying to apply mechanistic, time related "cause and effect" logic to concepts such as conscious awareness and thought processes which are beyond human understanding.
I do not claim to understand how our conscious awareness and thought processes work - I just know what they do.  They give me the freedom to choose my own destiny.

[Stranger]

If "the mind" is just a lump of matter being acted upon by reactions to past events which cannot be changed, there is no source of control.

Baseless and nonsensical assertion. Control doesn't mean your impossible, contradictory magic. An animal's brain controls its movements, a thermostat controls the temperature of something. And it doesn't matter a jot to the logic if the mind is entirely matter or not. I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting the argument against you like this - it really isn't very honest of you.

Any outcome will be an unintended consequence to events beyond any form of control. 

More nonsense. An intention is either something that arises entirely because of reasons (its antecedents) or it's (to some extent) random.

In this scenario, how can conscious intent come to fruition?

See above.

You are trying to apply mechanistic, time related "cause and effect" logic to concepts such as conscious awareness and thought processes...

As I said before, it is impossible for a mind to operate without time and logic dictates that that we are either dealing with determinism or some element of randomness. Endless foot-stamping, incredulity, and repetition isn't going to change that.

You said you had logic. Isn't it about time you attempted some?

...which are beyond human understanding.

Another baseless assertion.

I do not claim to understand how our conscious awareness and thought processes work - I just know what they do.  They give me the freedom to choose my own destiny.

Nobody said otherwise, it's your absurd and self-contradictory definition of 'freedom' that's the problem.

[Alan Burns]

Every event in my brain is 'uncontrollable'. When was the last time you controlled your brain function ?

I am doing it right now!

Can you alter the function of any of your synapses such that your brain function is changed ?  The idea that we can control our brain function makes no sense; for that to be possible would imply that a brain needs a brain in order to control it,...

No.  It needs a source of control which is not shackled to endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect.  Can we call this source the human soul?

which means that the controlling brain needs a controlling brain controller to control it, and you end up vanishing in an infinite regress of controllers.

It just need "you".  You are the controller.

That is all spurious conceptualising. The feeling of control is something that emerges out of brain function. 

But what I am writing right now is not just a feeling.
I am in control of the fingers typing on this keyboard as a result of my consciously driven intent to reply to your post in a meaningful way.

Likewise, the claim that our reactions are not inevitable is also baseless. When was the last time you saw something beautiful and chose to find it ugly. When was the last time you looked up at the sky and decided to see it as green ?

You are confusing facts and personal likes and dislikes with choices.
Our freedom to guide our thought processes to reach intended goals cannot change facts or personal preferences.

  We might make complex choices, but all such choices derive from fundamental reactions which are and must be, inevitable in nature. The resolving of a choice in a mind is the consequential outcome of billions of neural events in a brain, not a single one of which can we 'control'.

Well whatever neuron is responsible for generating this post must be very clever (or perhaps dumb in your opinion  )

[Alan Burns]

Baseless and nonsensical assertion. Control doesn't mean your impossible, contradictory magic. An animal's brain controls its movements, a thermostat controls the temperature of something. And it doesn't matter a jot to the logic if the mind is entirely matter or not. I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting the argument against you like this - it really isn't very honest of you.

I can see how an animal reacts to events in what we perceive to be a controlled, but predictable, manner.  But we are not animals.  We have the freedom to choose how to react.  Neither are we a contraption (such as a thermostat) which has been consciously designed to extend the controlling function of the person who designed it.

[Stranger]

I can see how an animal reacts to events in what we perceive to be a controlled, but predictable, manner.

Animals' brains do control (amongst other things) their movements. As I said, you don't get to redefine the English language in order to make the word 'control' mean your impossible, self-contradictory, magic version.

But we are not animals.

Simply untrue.

We have the freedom to choose how to react.

More foot-stamping.   

Are you ever going to even try to produce the logic you said you had...?

[jeremyp]

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

On what basis would you make a different choice? If you have exactly the same information, why would you make a different choice?

[Stranger]

I am doing it right now!

Beyond absurd.

No.  It needs a source of control which is not shackled to endless chains of uncontrollable cause and effect.  Can we call this source the human soul?

Nonsensical assertion.

It just need "you".  You are the controller.

Just saying 'you' is not an argument, it doesn't address the absurdity and infinite regress you've created for yourself.

But what I am writing right now is not just a feeling.
I am in control of the fingers typing on this keyboard as a result of my consciously driven intent to reply to your post in a meaningful way.

And you're either doing that entirely as the person you are (your personality as built up by nature, nurture, and experience), reacting to the situation you're in (reading and replying to a post) or something about it is random. And yet again: the role of your consciousness is irrelevant to the argument. Whether your reaction is entirely driven by your conscious mind, or your conscious mind only gets informed afterwards, or anything in between, doesn't make a jot of difference to the logic of the situation.

You talked about (non-human) animals being predictable - many of them are not nearly as predicable as your endlessly repeated stream of nonsense, gibberish, fallacies, and foot-stamping.

You are confusing facts and personal likes and dislikes with choices.
Our freedom to guide our thought processes to reach intended goals cannot change facts or personal preferences.

Guiding our own thought processes is still nonsense that leads to infinite regress, no matter how often you repeat it. You are doing what you want to do and you can no more choose to not want something you want, than you can choose to find something ugly that you actually find beautiful. And before you say you can choose to not do something you want to do, that is only ever because you want something else more.

Well whatever neuron is responsible for generating this post must be very clever (or perhaps dumb in your opinion  )

More misrepresentation. Nobody suggested a single neuron was responsible.

[Alan Burns]

And yet again: the role of your consciousness is irrelevant to the argument. Whether your reaction is entirely driven by your conscious mind, or your conscious mind only gets informed afterwards, or anything in between, doesn't make a jot of difference to the logic of the situation.

But the role of conscious interaction makes a huge difference to the credibility of any argument you postulate.

How can you possibly claim your conscious awareness (ie the only reality you know) is irrelevant?