tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post3507732363213478369..comments2024-03-16T16:43:13.585-04:00Comments on thoughts & ramblings: In Defense Of Free WillZack Hemseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-83002829486958792102017-06-26T09:33:48.224-04:002017-06-26T09:33:48.224-04:00“Material conditions of humans determine their con...“Material conditions of humans determine their consciousness” - I don’t find this notion compelling. Also not sure if you (or the holders of this perspective) mean consciousness in the philosophical sense (i.e. subjective experience, a.k.a. the hard problem of consciousness), or if you mean it in a loose sense to refer to awareness and/or behavioral disposition….although, in either case, I still don’t find it compelling.<br /><br />Of course, the state of our environment and surroundings do impact our internal state of being, but to suggest that one’s surroundings singlehandedly determine one’s internal state of being seems self-evidently false. Perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate this is to note that one’s internal state can fluctuate amidst consistent “material conditions”.<br /><br />Note the qualifier “might” in the statement: “if you are dying of hunger, you might become a criminal”. Yes, I might...or I might not. Similarly, some abused children go on to become abusers themselves, and some don’t. Some who are raised in drug-addicted households grow up to become drug addicts, and some grow up with no desire or impulse to engage such substances. In other words, equal conditions can lead to unequal outcomes. It doesn’t mean the conditions are irrelevant - it just means the conditions are not sufficient in and of themselves to understand behavior.<br /><br />Regarding genetics, our genes do contain various predispositions. However, genes do not have fixed states of expression - they contain a range of possible expressions - the specific state that gets expressed is determined by factors outside of the gene. So genes matter, but by no means are they the whole story.<br /><br />Understanding and learning from history so as to make better choices / conditions moving forward is totally fine, but nothing about this guarantees the understanding you reach will be accurate or objective, nor does it guarantee that the conclusions you reach (and implement) will be helpful or ultimately beneficial. I was not previously familiar with dialectical materialism, but based on how you have defined / explained it, I find it unpersuasive.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-28734775256663396642017-06-24T22:05:51.096-04:002017-06-24T22:05:51.096-04:00Nice reading in the middle of the night, was a bit...Nice reading in the middle of the night, was a bit caught by surprise. <br /><br />This notion of free will is particularly relevant in our socities.<br /><br />There are other authors that discussed this topic through another point of view : the marxists, but more widely the authors that abided by the dialectical materialism phylosophical doctrine.<br /><br />Even though this doctrine primarly focuses on the history of social developments (and especially on the class warfare), I believe it can be extended to the general idea of free will.<br /><br />Dialectical materialism states that the material conditions of humans determine their consciousness. And not the other way around. <br />It strongly implies that the concept of "free will" (at least in the way we see our social relations) is a false one ; it's not the natural way of evolution.<br /><br />Thus appears with it the notion of "social constructs". Indeed if you are litteraly dying of hunger, you might become a criminal by robbing to eat. And I guess this somehow can be linked to genetics questions too ; if I have this disease it's because it is transmitted through my genes.<br /><br />However, the line is drawn by marxists to not fall in negative nihilism as I call it (or basic determinism). The fact that free will is an illusion does not mean we are doomed to be slave of the past and of our present conditions. <br /><br />I quote you : "We don't need to understand how or why something is, in order for that something to be the case." That is precisely what marxists would reject. They believe that by analyzing, critizing and understanding history (how and why something is, or happened to be) in order to shape it, to change it the way we want. In order to exerce control over it.<br /><br />The key idea is to be able to realize the existence of the thing that is, then analyze it, then take a step back, and finally act over it. And how can we obtain this "realization"? Well, by transmiting knowledge and by teaching our fellow humans.<br /><br />As for the end of your text, I always found it appealing to think we are part of some giant core entity, a sort of hive-mind like object. But I would like to ask that if that was the case, maybe we would have found it a bit earlier, wouldn't we?<br /><br />PS : after reading my little comments, I came to realize it can sound somehow harsh and condecendent, please believe me this is not the case! I sincerly thank you for writting this as it helps me to cope with unwanted insomnia.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-34657387895535544372014-07-30T02:30:42.680-04:002014-07-30T02:30:42.680-04:00So.... I just read this while Mind Heist Evolution...So.... I just read this while Mind Heist Evolution was on loop and then got to the mind blown picture. Pretty much summed up what i was feeling. I laughed out loud, then went back to my iPod and picked Greeting the Menace as my next song. S. Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04665966938178152515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-23647080818111048982014-07-06T09:39:57.576-04:002014-07-06T09:39:57.576-04:00It sounds we are talking about quantum mechanism, ...It sounds we are talking about quantum mechanism, and i believe it. About the "free will", I do believe it as well, it is because of thought of human rise, the "unpredictable" things becomes predictable, so i think we are controlling our willing.Yuding Zhouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07723611494306097027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-89181120362209401632014-07-01T01:55:31.536-04:002014-07-01T01:55:31.536-04:00An interesting read of a similar nature that gives...An interesting read of a similar nature that gives a completely fictional view (albeit spiritual by the very nature of the fiction) is "God's Debris" by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. It's pretty good, especially the bit about freewill, gravity, and probability.<br /><br />Might be a good "thought experiment" for a fellow philosopher-composer. <br /><br />Enjoy.<br /><br />Adams, Scott. 2004. "God's Debris: A Thought Experiment." Andrews McMeel. Kansas City, MO.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11054038694899830207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-56906225083817831652014-06-04T21:47:52.160-04:002014-06-04T21:47:52.160-04:00It is very interesting. In response to your comme...It is very interesting. In response to your comments about the subconscious, there is no doubt that we have multiple systems that are on autopilot, and this in and of itself does not negate free will. Without discrediting the merits of your belief that we are “free” to discard, disregard, or acquiesce to the effects of these systems (after all, I am obviously a “defender” of free will), I would just point out that neither appeal to the subconscious, nor expressing the belief / hope that we can control our decisions, by themselves refute the arguments made by Sam Harris against free will.<br /><br />In terms of the “Fuck you, Holmes” factor, while certainly amusing, it does not shed any light on the philosophical discussion of free will - yes, human behavior can be very unpredictable, but this observation by itself is not revelatory with respect to ascertaining whether any of our behavior is consciously intended. We have free will only to the extent that we consciously generate and drive our behavior…this is more than being aware of what we’re doing as we do it, and requires that we as conscious selves are the root cause for why we do at least some of what we do. <br /><br />To your last point regarding the lack of empirical data, many would reply that neuroscience is in fact gathering empirical data, and that as this area of research continues to mature and evolve, it will only get closer and closer to answering all the questions of mind. Of course, it will unquestionably continue to gather data, but how we interpret that data is another matter.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-18561330311683983112014-06-04T21:45:09.364-04:002014-06-04T21:45:09.364-04:00Likewise Anonymous!Likewise Anonymous!Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-42329231459053823842014-06-04T18:08:55.477-04:002014-06-04T18:08:55.477-04:00It's very interesting that some of us humans a...It's very interesting that some of us humans actually dispute whether or not we exist as our own free-thinkers, not because they want it to be that way but because they feel that 'that is the way it is.' The human mind is the most immensely complex object we have ever tried to understand, and we all get one for ourselves - and we are the only organisms we know of that have tried to understand our own minds.<br /><br />I believe that our subconscious is largely responsible for what we can and cannot do, but what we decide to do is up to our conscious selves. The subconscious (without you knowing) analyzes a situation based on your past experiences and memories and comes up with a solution to your problem, which is why you suddenly 'realize' things, sometimes without even thinking about them. While our subconscious helps decide what the best course of action is, our conscious mind has the 'free will' to discard, disregard, or act on these ideas.<br /><br />I cite your body's reaction to touching a hot surface, such as a stovetop. Pull your freaking finger away, right? Well, you don't actually have time to think that, because by the time the signals of your burning hands reach your brain, your spine (I repeat, your spine) has already subconsciously decided that the situation is too urgent to wait for a 'free will' decision to pull your hands back. This is an example of a situation when we do not have free will, but most decisions you can control the outcome yourself. In principle, I believe that your options for action are decided by previous experience and knowledge, but we are able to control the decision itself.<br /><br />I would also like to point out the 'Fuck you, Holmes' factor - coined by a professor who was performing a simple input-output psychological experiment. One of his subjects was deliberately refusing to do what he wanted (possibly just to screw his results.) When inquired about why, he responded simply "Because fuck you, Holmes." Why? We'll never know, but the fact is that humans are unpredictable, especially in a social context. Free will antagonists might say that this is because as humans we want to be classified in society, but I think it is because our free will has given us the opportunity to be creative and different.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest problem we face in this field (and in psychology in general) is that we have no empirical data or evidence. Scientists may have been able to predict somebody's actions before they could, but there are arguments that account for that (including mine,) and there are certainly arguments out there that disprove those arguments.<br /><br />But the bottom line is, what would we do without are own minds?<br /> -WillRalianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08423630079290598552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-12115380093863789632014-06-03T09:04:02.093-04:002014-06-03T09:04:02.093-04:00One reason this is so interesting (to me anyway) i...One reason this is so interesting (to me anyway) is that it begins to encroach upon areas so basic and yet can (likely) never be fully accepted as fact -- e.g. Do we even "exist" or are we a computer simulation? (the "Matrix" concept)<br /><br />In this vein, the very idea of what a thought is, where it 'comes from', and 'when do we experience it' may never be fully understood and worse, may not be able to be understood as the argument can always 'degrade' back to a "Yeah, but what caused THAT?" ad infinitum.<br /><br />I find it also interesting that (in other works) Mr. Harris also proposes that science can make assertions about Right and Wrong... And not that I disagree, but, how can that be true if what we think can not be asserted as something we actually control?<br /><br />This has been great Mr. Hemsey, and I look forward to other discussions.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-33988754851360327702014-06-03T00:15:52.053-04:002014-06-03T00:15:52.053-04:00Ah, thank you for that clarification. There may be...Ah, thank you for that clarification. There may be differences between snap decisions and prolonged ones, but not in a way that matters to Argument 2, which holds equally in both cases…even if you spend 2 years pondering a decision, you still cannot account for why you have any of the thoughts that you do during your deliberation. The same goes for the entirety of one's thought process in general - you just think what you think, for reasons unknown.<br /><br />Supposing that consciousness has a role to play in our choices is fine - and I sympathize with this proposition - however, Harris asserts that our subjective experience corresponds only with thoughts popping into our awareness…we don’t experience ourselves generating thoughts, so much as “receiving” thoughts. So if we have no subjective experience of ourselves creating thoughts, and we merely experience them already formed, then how can we as conscious selves purport to be the cause of them? Of course, we can claim some other aspect of ourselves is responsible (e.g. the unconscious), but any such attempt does not correspond to the sense of self and conscious agency that we all feel like we have.<br /><br />As far as I can see, the only way out of this dilemma is to submit one or more of the following: 1) Claim that our subjective experience does in fact correspond with the creation of our thoughts (i.e. the sensation of thoughts popping into our awareness is actually the sensation of those thoughts being created) 2) Dispute the assertion that not being able to account for why we think what we think is relevant or indicative of anything 3) Dispute the assumption that thoughts require causes (i.e. thoughts are an ontologically distinct phenomena that don’t have causes in the traditional mechanistic sense) 4) Declare the arguments / evidence against free will to be valid, but draw a different conclusion from the same data (e.g. that our perceived identity as discrete selves is illusory, not free will).Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-46248304703172935902014-06-02T08:40:19.369-04:002014-06-02T08:40:19.369-04:00quote from arg #2: "... If we have no control...quote from arg #2: "... If we have no control over what we think and feel, then we have no control over our actions and behavior..."<br /><br />My thought experiment tried to introduce the idea that the "then" in his argument may not be true in all cases. At some level, consciousness, I think grants us 'options.' If you have some time to ponder about a situation, is that not fundamentally different than cases where 'snap' decisions are made?<br /><br />I would agree that granting free will a certainty would be difficult to prove for all thought processes *but* perhaps suggesting that there is not ANY free will is easier to disprove by finding ANY case where you can disconnect the 2 halves of his Arg#2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-75850398478403752632014-06-01T11:09:17.025-04:002014-06-01T11:09:17.025-04:00Not quite following your thought experiment. Howe...Not quite following your thought experiment. However, I agree that if aspects of existence are scientifically unpredictable then there is room for the possibility of free will, but in no way does such unpredictability make free will a certainty, and importantly, in and of itself such unpredictability does not refute either of the arguments that Sam Harris is making.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-48394451170807607552014-05-30T13:19:21.209-04:002014-05-30T13:19:21.209-04:00Free Will as defined by Mr. Webster:
"the ab...Free Will as defined by Mr. Webster:<br /><br />"the ability to choose how to act."<br /><br />But now we must decide what "choosing" means.<br /><br />The principles I introduced (and what I am suggesting) is that if you agree that your thought process can not be 'predicted' then there must be some influence the brings about one outcome over another. The question remains just what that influence was -- was it your conscious effort of "thought" -- or was it because a butterfly flapped its wings in Argentina (yesterday, no less!)<br /><br />Here's a thought experiment: Lets say I am going to ask you to choose which of 2 hallways to walk down. I can tell you that this will occur next Tuesday or I can not and just confront you with the choice when we meet (which we were going to do regardless next Tuesday.)<br /><br />Do you perceive any difference in the manner in which you will choose?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-90482470627619255162014-05-28T17:16:27.225-04:002014-05-28T17:16:27.225-04:00Well there is a difference between claiming the un...Well there is a difference between claiming the universe is not 100% predictable and claiming that we have free will. Your reference to the Uncertainty Principle is relevant to the former, but not the latter. If aspects of existence are random and/or unknowable, then it will certainly be impossible to predict the future deterministically. However, free will requires that you (the conscious self-aware you) are a deliberate / intentional source of thoughts / actions - so if the significant “out” you’re implying is that features of quantum physics account for free will, I would say you have conflated unpredictability with conscious agency - a random driver pushing around our neurons in unpredictable ways still means that you are not the one driving!<br /><br />The fact that I made no mention of quantum indeterminacy within the article should not imply that I don’t concede it’s validity - just that it wasn't relevant to the discussion. As a result, my “reversal” going back to the Big Bang may be oversimplified, but it illustrates the point nonetheless, a point which remains the same with all the strangeness of quantum physics - namely, we cannot account for why we think what we think regardless of the source of our thoughts, but this in and of itself does not lead to a necessary conclusion one way or another on the matter of free will. And moreover, if the Big Bang or quantum indeterminacy is ultimately responsible for our thoughts, then perhaps this shows that the illusion at hand is not free will, but actually our sense of self as discrete egos separate from everything else.Zack Hemseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583382768263193839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-801873645877244873.post-85487084808302411792014-05-28T16:30:09.008-04:002014-05-28T16:30:09.008-04:00You've forgotten a significant "out"...You've forgotten a significant "out" in all of this. <br /><br />The notion of "If we knew the location of every particle in the universe (with a few other constraints)... we could predict the future with 100% accuracy" is tempting; and you've suggested essentially the reverse by trying to work your way back to the Big Bang. But as we are beginning to fully appreciate, the Uncertainty Principle and other indications like what exactly "nothing" means (in the scientific sense not the literal) as well as implications of quantum physics and string theory all point to an 'uncertainty' that can drive the free-will concept just after (before?) the "I have no idea" singularity.<br /><br />I think it could be that it is the uncertainty aspect that drives the whole system and so each of us has our neurons pushed around in unpredictable ways, forcing each of us to "arrive at" completely unpredictable thoughts (that may) simply "pop" into our heads. In that sense, there is nothing *but* Free-Will.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com