"Freedom" of the will.

[Chester]

If I am free to learn stuff then I am free to change my desires. For instance, if I discovered that a particular act that I love doing is causing me damage I may cease to love doing it...I can adapt my will to reality.Being able to make choices based on reality is freedom.

I really think that you if stopped for 5 minutes to think about this stuff you'd agree that we do not have free will and that what you are defending most of the time is not free will but something else. Being able to make choices based on reality is freedom, not free will. Furthermore, it's only freedom in the sense that you are not being coerced by someone else.

Anyway, if you discover that a particular action you like doing is actually harmful, you may stop liking it.
However, the "discovering", the "liking" and the decision to stop liking are all things that are riding on top of unconscious processes. This is obvious when you think about your life retrospectively.

I really can choose what I think about and when.

Again, to claim that is to be completely out of touch with reality.
Thoughts simply arise into consciousness. And when you think about the way you think ( for instance when you decided to focus on something), that is just more thoughts. The decision to focus on something instead of what you were thinking about previously is a thought in itself similar to the previous one. Why did you decided to focus on monday but not on thursday? Why were you able to succeed in focusing on saturday but not on sunday? You cannot account for these things.

The idea that the subconscious totally controls the conscious mind is a non-starter .

The problem here is that you're thinking of a very "freudian" unconscious.
The chemical reactions in your brain are unconscious. The actions of neurotransmitters are unconscious.
You are not aware of most of what happens in your brain.
We're not just talking about daddy issues and sexual repression.

As I have already said, my will is not the whole of me, I also have something called an intellect .Maybe an easier way to visualise my idea is to see your will as a horse on which your conscious intellect rides ( we almost agree on this point as your "the "liking" and the decision to stop liking are all things that are riding on top of unconscious processes." demonstrates), the horse's mind (sub-conscious) is not totally (or even mainly) controlled by you, but it can be steered by you if you have a strong enough intellect.What this implies is that freedom of the will is really about the freedom of the rider to direct the horse to where he (the rider) wants to get, in other words, true freedom of the self is about controlling the will , not freeing it.

The idea that thoughts simply rise out of the subconscious into the conscious misses the fact that the intellect (or conscious mind) decides what thoughts it should concentrate on. If I'm riding a motorbike at a 120 miles an hour I ain't thinking about random sub-conscious generated thoughts...we can do something called concentrating on what we are doing.

[volchok]

As I have already said, my will is not the whole of me, I also have something called an intellect

Well, yes, you have said that a bunch of times but it's still unconvincing. Have you ever studied intelligence? Like really studied it? What it is and what it isn't, how it acts, what it means to be an intelligent person and so forth? Probably not right ? Well I have. It's part of a course I did. There are several competing theories, some more credible then others but the bottom line is that there isn't a chunk of your brain called intelligence. Intelligence is the product of a bunch of variables. A bunch of variables which you had no control over and that you are not aware of when they come into play.

The problem here is that you create this artificial and nonsensical distinctions that are unsupported by evidence.
So, for you there is the self, then there's the intellect , then there's the will, then there is the conscious mind and lastly the unconscious mind.
This is, of course, unsustainable.

The will, the (illusory) self and the intellect are the same thing. The expression of what goes on in your physical brain. The only reason we have different names for these things is to help us communicate with each other about very specific issues but the distinction is completely artificial.

true freedom of the self is about controlling the will , not freeing it.

It follows from what I just said that the will controls you and not the other way around. And when you decide to do something even though you don't want to do it, that whole process is the product of the will, not the product of you affecting the will. In, fact, and I've said this earlier, what the will does, is what you constitute as a self.

The idea that thoughts simply rise out of the subconscious into the conscious misses the fact that the intellect (or conscious mind) decides what thoughts it should concentrate on.

The decision itself is another thought riding on top of unconscious processing. That's what you're having a hard time understanding. You think that either a decision is not a thought or that some of your thoughts are fundamentally different then others but you are wrong on both accounts.

[Chester]

As I have already said, my will is not the whole of me, I also have something called an intellect

Well, yes, you have said that a bunch of times but it's still unconvincing. Have you ever studied intelligence? Like really studied it? What it is and what it isn't, how it acts, what it means to be an intelligent person and so forth? Probably not right ? Well I have. It's part of a course I did. There are several competing theories, some more credible then others but the bottom line is that there isn't a chunk of your brain called intelligence. Intelligence is the product of a bunch of variables. A bunch of variables which you had no control over and that you are not aware of when they come into play.

The problem here is that you create this artificial and nonsensical distinctions that are unsupported by evidence.
So, for you there is the self, then there's the intellect , then there's the will, then there is the conscious mind and lastly the unconscious mind.
This is, of course, unsustainable.

The will, the (illusory) self and the intellect are the same thing. The expression of what goes on in your physical brain. The only reason we have different names for these things is to help us communicate with each other about very specific issues but the distinction is completely artificial.

true freedom of the self is about controlling the will , not freeing it.

It follows from what I just said that the will controls you and not the other way around. And when you decide to do something even though you don't want to do it, that whole process is the product of the will, not the product of you affecting the will. In, fact, and I've said this earlier, what the will does, is what you constitute as a self.

The idea that thoughts simply rise out of the subconscious into the conscious misses the fact that the intellect (or conscious mind) decides what thoughts it should concentrate on.

The decision itself is another thought riding on top of unconscious processing. That's what you're having a hard time understanding. You think that either a decision is not a thought or that some of your thoughts are fundamentally different then others but you are wrong on both accounts.

Sorry for the delay.

I'm going to stick with my analogy. My sub-conscious is the horse on which my conscious mind rides, my intelligence is the cart that we tow around (its capacity I am born with, its load is what I have added.) All three parts (horse,rider and cart) are me...and yes, they represent different types of thought.

It is clear that I can use my knowledge to adjust the direction of my will. Put simply, my conscious mind can use my knowledge (or what I believe in) to redirect my will. Your mistake is to think that because all will is caused that that implies it is not free to be directed...if it is directed by knowledge/beliefs then that is as free as we want it to be (if we are sane).

[volchok]

It is clear that I can use my knowledge to adjust the direction of my will. Put simply, my conscious mind can use my knowledge (or what I believe in) to redirect my will. Your mistake is to think that because all will is caused that that implies it is not free to be directed...if it is directed by knowledge/beliefs then that is as free as we want it to be (if we are sane).

Now we're getting somewhere. You're already acknowledging that certain kinds of free will are not worth wanting. That's certainly progress.
Anyway, the problem here is with the way you phrase things.
As I've said many times, you knowing something may, in fact, affect your will. If you know that smoking is bad for you, you might stop smoking. If you know that being exposed to the sun for copious amounts of time is unhealthy, you might apply sunscreen when you go to the beach. If you know that your girlfriend has a history of cheating you might break up with her. All this things are perfectly possible. They happen everyday. I have never disputed this. This is also typically known as "freedom to act". Again, freedom to act, not free will. I think that the concept of freedom to act is also deeply flawed and the very best it means that you're not being coerced by others but that's a discussion for another day.

So, beliefs and knowledge affect your actions, sure. But that has jack shit to do with free will.
After all where is the freedom, in doing what one wants, when one's wants are the product of prior causes, which one cannot inspect and therefor could not choose?


Anyway, I've explained the issue as best as I could.
Here's a video of a talk Sam Harris did just yesterday about the subject of his new book, free will.
If you watch this video and still think we have free will, then I'm afraid there's no point continuing this discussion.

[Calrid]

If you watch this video and still think we have free will, then I'm afraid there's no point continuing this discussion.

Now that's progress there's no point having this discussion because it doesn't ever get resolved though.

Sam Harris can make all the logical arguments he wants, without the science it's hollow. Kinda like Dawkins trying to defend the idea that God doesn't exist, interesting but hardly definitive and certainly no place for science.

[volchok]

Now that's progress there's no point having this discussion because it doesn't ever get resolved though.

If a talk by Sam Harris won't convince him, my arguments certainly won't. That's the reason why there's no point continuing.

Sam Harris can make all the logical arguments he wants, without the science it's hollow.

Did you happen to miss him mentioning scientific experiments that have been replicated over and over again?
Have you read his book on the subject? no, right?
It's easy to say that arguments are not backed up by science if you close your eyes and cover your ears every time someone presents you with evidence.
Which is what you do.

Kinda like Dawkins trying to defend the idea that God doesn't exist, interesting but hardly definitive and certainly no place for science.

I think it's hillarious when people say that science has no place on that subject. Just out of curiosity, what would be the apropriate tool?

[Calrid]

Now that's progress there's no point having this discussion because it doesn't ever get resolved though.

If a talk by Sam Harris won't convince him, my arguments certainly won't. That's the reason why there's no point continuing.

Sam Harris can make all the logical arguments he wants, without the science it's hollow.

Did you happen to miss him mentioning scientific experiments that have been replicated over and over again?
Have you read his book on the subject?

Kinda like Dawkins trying to defend the idea that God doesn't exist, interesting but hardly definitive and certainly no place for science.

I think it's hillarious when people say that science has no place on that subject. Just out of curiosity, what would be the apropriate tool?

volchok, Volchok, Volchok we have done this those experiments are so heavily disputed by everyone they may as well of tried to prove God exists.

You will not win by proving that disputed science is consensus.

Have not read his book, but should I if his documentary is but an opinion on a sea of opinions?

By the way you said first that science has no place on the subject not me, I disputed that. Read carefully Dawkins has no place to prove something that does not exist. That is philosophy. Dennett could and does prove that free will is not a solved issue. Sam Harris can wax lyrical all he wants but until he has the science he needs it's all just hot air, like you Volchock, it's all just hot air.

And on it goes post after post ad nauseum.
I was once like you Volchok young arrogant and ignorant, I grew up and realised that I was not the all singing all dancing prick of the world, and my opinions did not mean that other opinions were wrong.

I respect your views Volchok I have even said I agree that free will is hard to prove. What I will not do is say that the lack of free will is proven, that is idiotic. And that smacks of stupidity.

When you think you have a point and you insult someone do you worry about which mod is hovering over you to warn you for it? Let me tell you I don't, I don't follow the rules of this forum because I fear the punishment or the gunishment, I follow them because I respect the mods to some degree. So with that in mind fuck you and your cripple bitch.

You sure not going to prove free will does not exist any more than Sam Harris has, you just wont, if you expect that to be the case then you are more delusional than I thought. This is a timeless issue sharpen your fangs on it bite, swallow and chew and digest it. But don't care that you will win, in this case winning is for losers.

[volchok]

You will not win by proving that disputed science is consensus.

A, it's not about winning.
And B, I never said there was consensus. In fact, I have said countless times that consensus is overrated should not be, at all, the standard of knowledge.

Have not read his book, but should I if his documentary is but an opinion on a sea of opinions?

What documentary? He never did a documentary. If you don't want to read it, that's fine. But you're making unfounded accusations without having heard his arguments. That's kind like spitting in the face of philosophy or something.

By the way you said first that science has no place on the subject not me, I disputed that.

You really are a pro at making shit up. What I said was that you don't need science to disprove free will. The notion is inconsistent and debunks itself. Science is simply the final nail in the coffin. As you can see, this is completely different then saying that science has no place.

Read carefully Dawkins has no place to prove something that does not exist.

As far as I know, Dawkins has never tried to prove anything besides the unlikelihood of god's existence. Hence why he considers himself a 6.5 on the scale he devised in his book. Have you read his book btw? I'm guessing not. I actually go further then him. I consider myself a 7 in that scale.

Sam Harris can wax lyrical all he wants but until he has the science he needs it's all just hot air, like you Volchock, it's all just hot air.

Actually, it goes like this: Until you can account for your mental events, you can claim free will all you want but it's painfully obvious that you don't have it.

I was once like you Volchok young arrogant and ignorant,

To me, this reads "My arguments are not compelling and I have lost this debate a long time ago therefor I have to call my opponent arrogant in order to save face".

I grew up and realised that I was not the all singing all dancing prick of the world, and my opinions did not mean that other opinions were wrong.

[Calrid]

You will not win by proving that disputed science is consensus.

A, it's not about winning.
And B, I never said there was consensus. In fact, I have said countless times that consensus is overrated should not be, at all, the standard of knowledge.

Have not read his book, but should I if his documentary is but an opinion on a sea of opinions?

What documentary? He never did a documentary. If you don't want to read it, that's fine. But you're making unfounded accusations without having heard his arguments. That's kind like spitting in the face of philosophy or something.

By the way you said first that science has no place on the subject not me, I disputed that.

You really are a pro at making shit up. What I said was that you don't need science to disprove free will. The notion is inconsistent and debunks itself. Science is simply the final nail in the coffin. As you can see, this is completely different then saying that science has no place.

Read carefully Dawkins has no place to prove something that does not exist.

As far as I know, Dawkins has never tried to prove anything besides the unlikelihood of god's existence. Hence why he considers himself a 6.5 on the scale he devised in his book. Have you read his book btw? I'm guessing not. I actually go further then him. I consider myself a 7 in that scale.

Sam Harris can wax lyrical all he wants but until he has the science he needs it's all just hot air, like you Volchock, it's all just hot air.

Actually, it goes like this: Until you can account for your mental events, you can claim free will all you want but it's painfully obvious that you don't have it.

I was once like you Volchok young arrogant and ignorant,

To me, this reads "My arguments are not compelling and I have lost this debate a long time ago therefor I have to call my opponent arrogant in order to save face".

I grew up and realised that I was not the all singing all dancing prick of the world, and my opinions did not mean that other opinions were wrong.

And this post doesn't come across as arrogant?

Actually in fight club he says the all dancing crap of the world.

I think you lost any credibility you had the moment you claimed you had proved something that was still considered contentious. Everything else is just you pretending you are omniscient.

"Listen to me! You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."-

That's quoting fight club and yes I am very cool.

[volchok]

Nice way of ignoring everything I just said. Several experiments have been done, they have been repeated over and over again trough time and Sam Harris does mention them both in his talk and in his book.

I know your quote was not fight club's exact quote. I know most of the quotes because it happens to be one my favorite films.
What is even worst then stealing the quote was that you took it and tried to make it your own in an attempt to look cool and failed miserably.

[Calrid]

Nice way of ignoring everything I just said. Several experiments have been done, they have been repeated over and over again trough time and Sam Harris does mention them both in his talk and in his book.

Yes and they have all been debunked thoroughly as proofs of free will by the field.

I know your quote was not fight club's exact quote. I know most of the quotes because it happens to be one my favorite films.
What is even worst then stealing the quote was that you took it and tried to make it your own in an attempt to look cool and failed miserably.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck. I'd work on that. We're not all 9 going on 11 you know. Why do you think I was trying to be cool, are you someone who cares about how cool you are? Another thing I'd work on.

[Only_Humean]

This thread needs some manners, or some warnings and locking. Most particularly you, mister Calrid sir.

[volchok]

Yes and they have all been debunked thoroughly as proofs of free will by the field.

Sure man, sure.
It's like a person falling down a cliff while at the same time shouting "look at me, I'm flying". And when you point out that they are falling, they just say "well you can't prove that I'm not flying".

Why do you think I was trying to be cool.

Because you quoted fight club and tried to make it look like it was your quote.
Plus it seems to be your mo.
You were just unlucky that fight club happens to be a film I'm very familiar with.
Better luck next time.

[Calrid]

Yes and they have all been debunked thoroughly as proofs of free will by the field.

Sure man, sure.
It's like a person falling down a cliff while at the same time shouting "look at me, I'm flying". And when you point out that they are falling, they just say "well you can't prove that I'm not flying".

Why do you think I was trying to be cool.

Because you quoted fight club and tried to make it look like it was your quote.
Plus it seems to be your mo.
You were just unlucky that fight club happens to be a film I'm very familiar with.
Better luck next time.

A better analogy would be you reckon that the entire breadth of conscious decision making process can be rendered into a choice of left or right. Which is idiotic and preposterous. Where as the rest of science thinks that this only says something meaningful about decision making processes that are arbitrary, not for example life or death choices. Which is what everyone who is not a crackpot in science says.

I don't give a shit about fight club, what you think is cool, or being cool in general, I really don't know where you got that stupidity from. I said I don't think I am the all singing all dancing crap of the world, who said it first, and I very much doubt it was the author of fight club, I really couldn't give a flying fuck about.

[Only_Humean]

Locked for 24 hours.

[Only_Humean]

Special 2-for-1 offer, a 48 hour lock!

Apologies for tardiness.

[volchok]

A better analogy would be you reckon that the entire breadth of conscious decision making process can be rendered into a choice of left or right.

With statements like that, you really make it easy for me.
No one said that the decision making process can be rendered into a choice of left or right. On the contrary!
The decision making process has been studied a lot in the last decades and from what we can tell it works like a very complex algorithm, something that I had mentioned before. Quite the opposite of what you just said.

And when you think about it you end up realizing that if it worked in any other way, psychology wouldn't exist at all and the study of behavior would be impossible.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'd actually not necessarily disagree with that statement: it's been proven that the only two logic gates you need to produce all other logic gates are the "or" gate and the "not" gate. Both of those can be said to function solely on a left-right basis. It's not entirely inconceivable then that our brain's algorithms, however complex, are rooted in a binary, left-right system.

[Calrid]

A better analogy would be you reckon that the entire breadth of conscious decision making process can be rendered into a choice of left or right.

With statements like that, you really make it easy for me.
No one said that the decision making process can be rendered into a choice of left or right. On the contrary!
The decision making process has been studied a lot in the last decades and from what we can tell it works like a very complex algorithm, something that I had mentioned before. Quite the opposite of what you just said.

And when you think about it you end up realizing that if it worked in any other way, psychology wouldn't exist at all and the study of behavior would be impossible.

Yeah but those experiments only dealt with decisions that involved picking two arbitrary choices with their left or right hand. No you make it easy for me to dismiss your evidence. And of course the fact science generally has dismissed it as a proof of free will helps too.

[Calrid]

I'd actually not necessarily disagree with that statement: it's been proven that the only two logic gates you need to produce all other logic gates are the "or" gate and the "not" gate. Both of those can be said to function solely on a left-right basis. It's not entirely inconceivable then that our brain's algorithms, however complex, are rooted in a binary, left-right system.

Don't be ridiculous, our brains do not work anything like computers, there's an entire field devoted to trying to mimic our brain function by using adaptive learning and fuzzy logic. You and Volchok have some really bad assumptions about how the brain functions, with those it is no wonder you think the brain works like a computer.

The point is there is nothing analogous with 1 or 0 in the brain any more than 1 and 0 are analagous to left or right. But this isn't important, what is important is that we have shown that when nothing rides on a decision and the brain really does not need to do more than chose between two arbitrary decisions, this process is mostly unconscious, this says nothing whatsoever about the whole breadth of decision, it's laughable that people even try to make a case it does. No laughable is the wrong term, hopelessly arrogant and unscientific.

[Moreno]

The brain is a computer analogy is just silly.

[volchok]

Yeah but those experiments only dealt with decisions that involved picking two arbitrary choices with their left or right hand..

Incorrect and once again displaying great ignorance.

What about the study of heuristics ? What about the study of cognitive biases? What about game theory ?

The problem here is that you don't know much about how the brain works so you just chuck it up to magic or some other indiscernible functioning that is not supported in any way by evidence.

[Only_Humean]

What about the study of heuristics ? What about the study of cognitive biases? What about game theory ?

These are statistical studies of populations; they don't say anything about how the brain works, they provide a predictive model for how people tend to behave, without reference to their "wiring". Even if they had free will, populations of people would tend to behave in certain ways.

On the other hand, they serve as a useful reminder that pure rationality is not a practicable (or even necessarily desirable) foundation for decision making, which is often a tenet of free will morality arguments.

[volchok]

they don't say anything about how the brain works,.

It addresses the result of how the brain works. From which you can certainly make sound inferences.

Even if they had free will, populations of people would tend to behave in certain ways.

Wrong. If you they truly had free will, they would scarcely seem to have a mind at all.

[Only_Humean]

they don't say anything about how the brain works,.

It addresses the result of how the brain works. From which you can certainly make sound inferences.

A list of where people drive says nothing important about how their car engines run. Even with all the traffic data for the past ten years, I couldn't build a combustion engine. At most, I could describe the specs that a design must run to. All you can say is that the models you propose via other methods fit the statistical data.

Even if they had free will, populations of people would tend to behave in certain ways.

Wrong. If you they truly had free will, they would scarcely seem to have a mind at all.

Now who is confusing free will with randomness?

I'm not bothered about defending it, as I think it's a confused and extraneous concept, but the fact that people choose roughly the same things in roughly the same circumstances is not an argument against free will. If they all have roughly similar minds (which is not something a free-willer will have to deny), they will act within a spread of responses.