Page 23 of 58 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 575

Thread: Free Will And Free Choice

  1. Top | #221
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    To claim we do not have free will is an inherently absurd position.

    It is claiming to know something is true but at the same time claiming to not be able to freely decide if something is true.

    For the unfree zombie truth is just something they are forced to believe.

    There would be no reason to think a truth claim from an unfree zombie had any validity.

    When an unfree zombie says they won't respond to some other unfree zombie they have made a free decision to not do something.

    Even if the unfree zombie is not able to see it.

    If the ideas you see as true were not freely decided they have no validity.

    No freedom to make judgements about ideas = no valid notion of truth.

  2. Top | #222
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    To claim we do not have free will is an inherently absurd position.

    It is claiming to know something is true but at the same time claiming to not be able to freely decide if something is true.

    For the unfree zombie truth is just something they are forced to believe.

    There would be no reason to think a truth claim from an unfree zombie had any validity.

    When an unfree zombie says they won't respond to some other unfree zombie they have made a free decision to not do something.

    Even if the unfree zombie is not able to see it.

    If the ideas you see as true were not freely decided they have no validity.

    No freedom to make judgements about ideas = no valid notion of truth.
    The proposition is that 'free will' is an incoherent term when applied to the nature and means of the decision making process.

    That the term free will is nothing more than a casual reference to someone who was not coerced or forced into making a decision.

    Which tells us absolutely nothing about how or why the decision was made....perhaps a decision the person regretted a moment after it was made.

    You still confuse the ability to make decisions with 'free will' when it is neither will or consciousness that makes decisions. It is the information state of a brain in any given instance in time that selects an option based on a set of criteria.

    A decision made in one moment can be regretted a moment later.

  3. Top | #223
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,581
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,794
    Rep Power
    64
    DBT. Great. I went through a bunch of instances and conditions. You generalized the answer to crystal clarity.

    I focused on the absurdity of the construct vis a vis reality, You concentrated on choice process. Now he should be aware that both ridicule, moot, subjective attribution of valence to decisions.

    Attempting to oppose evidentiary statements with unsupported claims of 'absurd' and 'foolish' is not a counter. Nonexistent state characterizations like 'zombie' help him not at all.

    Trying to make relations between free and valid are meaningless. A valid decision is valid whether 'freely', - whatever that is - coerced, or jointly made. Most would argue that a decision is good whether by individual or group.

    Making self claims re behavioral independence cannot stand in light of evidence and pragmatics of the decision construct.

  4. Top | #224
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    To claim we do not have free will is an inherently absurd position.

    It is claiming to know something is true but at the same time claiming to not be able to freely decide if something is true.

    For the unfree zombie truth is just something they are forced to believe.

    There would be no reason to think a truth claim from an unfree zombie had any validity.

    When an unfree zombie says they won't respond to some other unfree zombie they have made a free decision to not do something.

    Even if the unfree zombie is not able to see it.

    If the ideas you see as true were not freely decided they have no validity.

    No freedom to make judgements about ideas = no valid notion of truth.
    The proposition is that 'free will' is an incoherent term when applied to the nature and means of the decision making process.
    Too bad you make that absurd claim in a philosophy forum and not a science forum with mush headed idiots.

    To claim you have a valid idea requires the freedom to accept some ideas and the freedom to reject others.

    If this freedom does not exist than anything you say has no meaning.

    It is just something you are forced to say.

    Like a windup toy forced to say "mama".

    Your position is absurd.

    You are claiming to both have made rational conclusions but also to not have the freedom to make rational conclusions.

    A conclusion is an act of the will or it has no meaning. Following reason is an act of the will. It is not natural. It is something a person must freely do or it will not be done.

  5. Top | #225
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    If you have no freedom you make no judgements.

    You simply act as you are forced to act by something that makes all the judgements for you.

    If you say "I have no free will", you say it because you are forced to say it.

    Ideas have no meaning to something forced to have them.

    Ideas only have meaning to something with the freedom to make judgements about them.

    The people that claim they don't have the freedom to make rational conclusions are blind to the absurdity of their claims.

  6. Top | #226
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,581
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,794
    Rep Power
    64
    Just following up. there are two ways to look a free will. One way is to consider whether choice governed by natural law and the other is relativistic "is the choice forced or voluntary'. Untermensche seems to want to mix the two. So I answered him both ways.

  7. Top | #227
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    If you are not free to make judgements and conclusions you can reflexively write out words.

    But they have no meaning.

    They are just something you are forced to write out.

    Two conditions can exist.

    1. A person is free to make conclusions based on ideas. In this scenario conclusions have meaning.

    2. A person is not free to make conclusions based on ideas. In this scenario conclusions have no meaning.

  8. Top | #228
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    To claim we do not have free will is an inherently absurd position.

    It is claiming to know something is true but at the same time claiming to not be able to freely decide if something is true.

    For the unfree zombie truth is just something they are forced to believe.

    There would be no reason to think a truth claim from an unfree zombie had any validity.

    When an unfree zombie says they won't respond to some other unfree zombie they have made a free decision to not do something.

    Even if the unfree zombie is not able to see it.

    If the ideas you see as true were not freely decided they have no validity.

    No freedom to make judgements about ideas = no valid notion of truth.
    The proposition is that 'free will' is an incoherent term when applied to the nature and means of the decision making process.
    Too bad you make that absurd claim in a philosophy forum and not a science forum with mush headed idiots.

    To claim you have a valid idea requires the freedom to accept some ideas and the freedom to reject others.

    If this freedom does not exist than anything you say has no meaning.

    It is just something you are forced to say.

    Like a windup toy forced to say "mama".

    Your position is absurd.

    You are claiming to both have made rational conclusions but also to not have the freedom to make rational conclusions.

    A conclusion is an act of the will or it has no meaning. Following reason is an act of the will. It is not natural. It is something a person must freely do or it will not be done.

    You miss the point entirely. If you actually understood what is being said, you would not be making remarks that don't relate to the nature of decision making.

    You, sir, prefer faith over reason.


    How Can There Be Voluntary Movement Without Free Will?

    ''Humans do not appear to be purely reflexive organisms, simple automatons. A vast array of different movements are generated in a variety of settings. Is there an alternative to free will? Movement, in the final analysis, comes only from muscle contraction. Muscle contraction is under the complete control of the alpha motoneurons in the spinal cord. When the alpha motoneurons are active, there will be movement. Activity of the alpha motoneurons is a product of the different synaptic events on their dendrites and cell bodies.

    There is a complex summation of EPSPs and IPSPs, and when the threshold for an action potential is crossed, the cell fires. There are a large number of important inputs, and one of the most important is from the corticospinal tract which conveys a large part of the cortical control. Such a situation likely holds also for the motor cortex and the cells of origin of the corticospinal tract. Their firing depends on their synaptic inputs.

    And, a similar situation must hold for all the principal regions giving input to the motor cortex. For any cortical region, its activity will depend on its synaptic inputs. Some motor cortical inputs come via only a few synapses from sensory cortices, and such influences on motor output are clear. Some inputs will come from regions, such as the limbic areas, many synapses away from both primary sensory and motor cortices. At any one time, the activity of the motor cortex, and its commands to the spinal cord, will reflect virtually all the activity in the entire brain. Is it necessary that there be anything else? This can be a complete description of the process of movement selection, and even if there is something more -- like free will -- it would have to operate through such neuronal mechanisms.

    The view that there is no such thing as free will as an inner causal agent has been advocated by a number of philosophers, scientists, and neurologists including Ryle, Adrian, Skinner and Fisher.(Fisher 1993)''

  9. Top | #229
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    The nature of decision making depends on the nature of the animal making the decision.

    If that animal is not free to make decisions than any decision made is forced and meaningless.

    To decide if an idea is true or false requires the freedom to make judgements.

    If you are not free to make judgements then nothing you say has any meaning.

    Your words are just a reflex if you have no freedom, a forced reaction that has no meaning.

    You are an absurd creature.

    Claiming to have valid information without the freedom to decide if an idea is good or bad.

    Your position is laughable.

    This is a philosophy board.

    You have no ability to think philosophically. You give me nothing to work with. My words make no sense to you.

    You think you can both claim to have truths but also claim to have no way to freely decide if something is true.

    Freedom of thought is just as much an expression of free will as the freedom to move or to not move.

    If your finger will move right after you will it to move then of course there has to be available energy to do that.

    To see activity before the mind moves the finger is necessary.

  10. Top | #230
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,745
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Decision making is the role of a brain. It is the brain of an animal (including human) to acquire and process information in order to interact with the objects and events of the world. It is the size and architecture of a brain that determines its capabilities as a decision maker and the behaviour it produces, herbivore, carnivore, omnivore, environmental niche, individual experiences, learning capability, etc, etc....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •