Is there such a thing as free will?

[devilof76]

I like being able to cut through the fat.

 

[Pork Chop Express]

That's because most philosophy is wrong.

I explain it as philosophy that's right.

Good luck with you rational arguments in a very irrational world.

 

[devilof76]

It's not the world that's irrational. Just the people.

 

[devilof76]

Induction / Inductive reasoning absolutely can be used the scientific method. In daily life, we constanly come to "conclusions" (in quotes because they're not really definitive conclusions) because life would be impractical without these constant, almost automatic leaps of faith.

What would constitute a definitive conclusion? Omniscience?

Induction is not a leap of faith, and the conclusions do not gain validity simply because they are (despite their allege insufficiency) inexplicably useful. Induction is the heart of the scientific method, and the greater part of all reasoning. Without generalizations, there is no abstract knowledge to apply in practice through deduction.

Every concept in our minds is the product of an inductive process. The means by which we conclude universality is not a hopeful guess; it's our ability to integrate new generalizations with the totality of our prior knowledge.

How can we recognize that a cat we've never seen before is in fact another of these things that we've designated as cats? It certainly isn't identical to all the other cats. To call them all the same thing should require an act of insanity. How is it even possible to reach a 'one' from the 'many'? We do it constantly, through the whole of our lives. Cats are still cats. Big, little, male, female, spayed, neutered, black, calico, Persian, Bombay, Maine coon, Schroedinger's, Cleopatra's, house, jungle, alley, feral, runt, etc. What about cats from outer space? Interdimensional cats? Divine cats? Are we guessing? Do we need to unlock the feline genetic code to know they're cats? Are we hanging by our fingernails off the precipice of ignorant bias until science comes along with a unified theory to certify that the animal inquestion is a cat?

We do it the same way we recognize that macroscopic bodies will behave in a manner consistent with the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Newton didn't shoot a human being safely onto the moon from 426,000 miles away. He didn't have to. Why? Because induction isn't an article of faith; it's the essence of reason.

We don't know for certain that the food we purchase at a restaurant isn't poisoned, but we eat it anyway. It would be extremely impractical (not to mention paranoid) to test every bite before we consume it to have certainty that it was safe. But based on our past experience, and our need to save time and get on with our lives, the most practical solution is the make the very reasonable assumption that the food is fine.

And we know that under certain circumstances, the safety of the food could be compromised. Given reason to believe that, most people won't eat it. How do we know that poison will harm us? How do we know that food is good for us when it's not poisoned? Knowledge of cause and effect, over hundreds of thousands of years. The 'why' may be unknown, but the 'what' has been established.

You can't use the lack of knowledge to invalidate the presence of knowledge. The fact that I've never been to China does not invalidate the knowledge of those who have been there. China is still there. The fact that I haven't seen every cat that has ever existed, or will ever exist, does not invalidate my knowledge that this purring, furry creature sitting on my shoulder is a cat.

So yes, I grant that induction is necessary for the practicality of life. Just as I absolutely believe that living one's life under the belief / assumption that we are the masters of our own destinies is the probably the only reasonable and practical way to be functional without becoming frozen in the questioning of it all.

I beg to differ. There are millions of people who are wholly convinced that their lives would be simpler if they were dogs, and never had to consider and solve any and all of life's problems. Dogs don't ask questions. They investigate for the purpose of identifying new situations, but they don't sit there contemplating, "What if this ball was fuzzy instead of smooth? Would I like it more? How can I change it to better suit my tastes? Can I achieve this in a finite lifetime? Is it worth the trouble? Would other dogs think more highly of me if I provided a better ball? Could such an advancement in recreational objects increase the longterm happiness of the canine species? Could it aid in our evolution? Could it end hostility? Would neighborhoods be quieter and more peaceful if dogs spent more time playing with *****, and less time barking?"

No. Because a deterministic consciousness doesn't ask questions. It's means are deterministic; content will not deviate from input, unless there is damage in the brain. You need volition for that.

You can start with the premise "conscioness/free will exists" under induction(because it makes life practical to believe that) but you absolutely cannot come up with an experiment to test that statement.

Where do you get the data to draw such a consclusion if there is nothing from which to draw it? Here's an experiment for you: open your eyes; do you see anything? Now go ask a solar cell if it sees something when the sun is shining on it.

Of course Hume couldn't find his self, he started with the assumption that something was there to find.

Given your argument that consciousness and free will are convenient assumptions, shouldn't there have been a self waving back at him to confirm his bias? Since the only reason we experience ourselves as individual selves is because we believe it, shouldn't he have been trapped within his pre-conceived notion? It's not like he was using an MRI, right? He didn't know what his brain was doing on a scientific level. He was just observing using his unaided, philosophical intellect.

What if he just started without a pre-concieved notion -- just with a completely open and unbiased mind with the aim of "let me just explore and see what I find to be true".

Let "me" explore, and "see" what "I" find to be "true"?

Nope, no consciousness here. Nope, no possibility of deviating from the information provided by reality that would cause my consclusions to deviate, rendering them false. Must be no free will either.

Gee, I wonder who is doing the seeing and questioning. No one volitionally conscious, that's for sure.

Of course, as humans, I realize that this is very difficult/impossible, especially when the subject we are investigating is ourselves. I think, if we recognize our own bias though, we'll see that we're giving ourselves a lot of credit for no tangible reason other than it is what "seems" to be the case to our already biased minds.

How did we give it to ourselves? Our self is a bias and we can't influence our mental processes. Somehow? But not volition. Ok. So long as you're not operating from an anti-volitional bias.

We'll "conclude" that free will must exist before we even start. It makes the entire questioning of whether we have it a farce---our "minds" are already made up.

If we just made it up out of the blue, then yes it would be a farce to believe it was true.

How did we 'make' it up?

Anything we find that contradicts (or simply doesn't directly support that) must be dismissed because it doesn't jive with what we started with. The truism that the observer alters the outcome is probably no more true that when the observer is trying to observe himself.

Science has produced no evidence that we are not volitionally conscious. They have confirmed that prior knowledge is employed in the making of a decision (and even then, all they've done is show brain activity; they've shown nothing relating to the actions of consciousness, presumably because they're operating under the bias that consciousness and brain are coextensive). We don't choose in a vacuum. From the moment we're born, knowledge begins to accumulate. At no point do we choose tabula rasa. (We can, however, choose against the recommendations of our subconscious. Try it some time.)

If someone were to fall for this straw man (free will must be omnipotent and unconnected to the inescapable universe; a religious belief, I might add) then I guess they would be prone to being convinced. Then they decide, "Gee, That would be inconvenient. I guess I'll choose to believe I have free will anyway, even though it's clear that I don't. Maybe when I wake up tomorrow, I'll decide to be more courageous and choose to believe, but until then, I choose to ignore the information presented to me by science and not believe."

Are you even listening to yourself?

I mean, you've almost gone so far as to suggest that the quanta in our brains could be making the decisions (the inanimate, unconscious constituents of matter, from which we observe no conscious or volitional behavior whatsoever). "A choice is happening, but clearly not in our conscious mind, which probably doesn't exist anyway."

My OPINION here: The free will question can't be solved by thinking about it. Philosophy/logic is great for very many things...up to a point. Pure science (exploring without any bias/expectation of what we "should" find) may be impossible, so I am absolutely NOT saying that I believe that will definitively find the answer at some point in the future either. I do believe that absolutely unbiased thinking/experiementing is the ideal though--even if it is something that is impossible for us as humans to do. And I do believe we should at least recognize when we are starting our thinking with a bias, even if we are powerless to completely remove it.

Science without prior knowledge would have to rediscover the entire universe at every step of the cognitive process. You're equating irrational bias with the fact that knowledge is cumulative. You're not making a valid argument (philosophy isgood for something---for starters, it invented the scientific method), but I bet the crows will stay far away from your fields. Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[devilof76]

...Bueller?

 

[Mr. Green]

Snooki here, I am not home so please leave a message after the beep...**Beep**

 

[devilof76]

Good morning Miss Snooki. Your test results are back and it appears that your chronic UTI has mutated into a new form of ebola. Our professional medical opinion is that you spread the love. Between you and the weather, Jersey Shore will be cleaned up in no time.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

words........

 

[devilof76]

You would need free will to make up free will. Our constant experience of having free will is sufficient to claim that we have free will.

Better?

 

[Mr. Green]

I still have the free will to make stupoid moneye. eeek!! whut's a UTI? - Snooki

 

[devilof76]

It's the reason why it burns when you pee.

 

[Mr. Green]

cool! Fist Pump! - Snooki