"Freedom" of the will.

[d63]

As someone once said free will is basically what you do to sharpen your philosophical skills, and that means you wont have a resolution, but you will have a tool or two.

Exactly, Calrid! Even if Volchok did prove himself to be right, or if Time magazine confirmed, on the front page, that he was, it really wouldn’t change my life that much since I would still have the experience of Free Will –an experience, incidentally, that render the authority of Time questionable. So even if the issue could be solved conclusively (which doesn’t seem likely), there’s really not that much at stake in it. It’s just a language game, for Christ’s sake! An opportunity to sharpen my own skills. I think I’m more interested in getting Volchok to lighten up than I am in proving him wrong.

[volchok]

But the issue of free will is something altogether different.

Is it thought?

However, this requires that I willingly submit to it and that I edit out what is significant to me. In other words, while thoughts can be spontaneous, I still participate in the results.

What you are failing to see here, is that you "submitting" to it or "participating" in the results is not at all fundamentally different then the thoughts that arise "spontaneously" as you have put it. The "submission is just the product of unconscious mechanisms. The very same unconscious mechanisms that produce the thoughts you admitted to not being able to account for. Once you understand this very basic point, you realize that free will is utterly nonsensical.

[Chester]

But the issue of free will is something altogether different.

Is it thought?

However, this requires that I willingly submit to it and that I edit out what is significant to me. In other words, while thoughts can be spontaneous, I still participate in the results.

What you are failing to see here, is that you "submitting" to it or "participating" in the results is not at all fundamentally different then the thoughts that arise "spontaneously" as you have put it. The "submission is just the product of unconscious mechanisms. The very same unconscious mechanisms that produce the thoughts you admitted to not being able to account for. Once you understand this very basic point, you realize that free will is utterly nonsensical.

Submitting to knowledge is not subconscious, it is a conscious act. For example, a child may love the look of fire, he may want to jump into it, but when an adult imparts the information (knowledge) that the fire is harmful in such a situation, then by consciously submitting to this knowledge the child has changed his will.

[Calrid]

As someone once said free will is basically what you do to sharpen your philosophical skills, and that means you wont have a resolution, but you will have a tool or two.

Exactly, Calrid! Even if Volchok did prove himself to be right, or if Time magazine confirmed, on the front page, that he was, it really wouldn’t change my life that much since I would still have the experience of Free Will –an experience, incidentally, that render the authority of Time questionable. So even if the issue could be solved conclusively (which doesn’t seem likely), there’s really not that much at stake in it. It’s just a language game, for Christ’s sake! An opportunity to sharpen my own skills.

Agreed.

I think I’m more interested in getting Volchok to lighten up than I am in proving him wrong.

I've also noticed Volchok never makes jokes or laughs and talks absurd shit like most people do. Perhaps he is Vulcan.

[volchok]

Submitting to knowledge is not subconscious, it is a conscious act..

Of course. A conscious act dependent on unconscious mechanisms. That's the whole point.

[volchok]

I've also noticed Volchok never makes jokes or laughs and talks absurd shit like most people do. Perhaps he is Vulcan.

Lol.

[d63]

I've also noticed Volchok never makes jokes or laughs and talks absurd shit like most people do. Perhaps he is Vulcan.

Yes! Or perhaps an android sent from the future to put an end to all forms of humanness before they become a human resistance to the android takeover. Maybe this is why he wants to convince us that we are basically meat bots. He may well be the Terminator.

[d63]

That said, and in all seriousness, I've been thinking about a story in which neuroscience, having discovered the correlating part of brain for the self, uses observable stimulus in that part of the brain to eliminate the self. It would consist of them asking the subject a series of questions accompanied by shocks with any stimulus of that particular part of the brain. Of course, the main stimulating response would be that of anger. In other words, in order to get through the process, one would first have to rid them self of anger, that is for being shocked, in order to truly rid them self of their self.

It would be creepy to say the least.

[lizbethrose]

volchok wrote:

I couldn't care less what most people think is true. I care about evidence. Most people don't know what determinism is or what randomness is. I mean, fuck, correct me if I'm wrong but even you admitted to not understand entirely what determinism entails. At least you seemed to be having a very hard time grasping the concept, hence your back and forth with flannel jesus at the time.

This is simply a lie and quite a lame cop out. I've explained countless times why free will is an impossibility. I have talked about a bunch of experiments (even though I really do think that one doesn't need to hear about any of that to dismiss free will), I've posted papers and so forth. I have showed you plenty of evidence. I never said free will is an illusion because I said so. I have also never resorted to name calling. In fact it was you that accused me of being a misogynist at a time where I didn't even know you're a woman. You then proceeded to mock me due to some typos probably knowing that English is not my native language.

While I maintain that, to present a valid, rhetorically logical argument, you should start with an opening premise that most people will accept as true--another area in which we should agree to disagree.

I must correct you--I do understand determinism and randomness which is why I introduced an indeterministic universe. I'll sometimes do that in order to bring the kite closer to earth, so when it inevitably falls, the string won't be too horribly tangled and knotted.

As for name-calling, you've done it indirectly even in your last post to me. When you say a statement of mine is a lie, you're calling me a liar. But I've also said, repeatedly, that name calling isn't necessarily an ad hom fallacy. Furthermore, you obviously haven't explained "why free will is an impossibility" (despite the authorities you cited) or more people would agree with you.

Finally, neither of us can 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that your misspelling of Calrid's name was a simple typo--nor can either of us 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt,' that English isn't your native tongue--and, while there are several unisex names, I've never known Elizabeth Rose to be one of them. I've always said that's my name and I've always said I'm female.

Your use of the nuances of the English language as shown by your ability to 'dance' around people's disagreements with you is exceptional, btw.

[Calrid]

I've also noticed Volchok never makes jokes or laughs and talks absurd shit like most people do. Perhaps he is Vulcan.

Lol.

That's more like it, ok half Vulcan.

Portugal I was guessing somewhere like The ex Eastern Bloc myself, maybe East Germany, still at least I was in the right continent.

[Chester]

Submitting to knowledge is not subconscious, it is a conscious act..

Of course. A conscious act dependent on unconscious mechanisms. That's the whole point.

The whole point is that earlier in the thread you told me it was impossible to prove there was no jam in a jar with no jam in it, now you expect me to believe that you have proof that my conscious choice to pay heed to truth/knowledge is dependent upon some subconscious mechanism over which I have no control...it's back to the drawing board for you volchock.

The proof of the pudding... if there is no conscious choice we would be able to choose truth unconsciously, there is no conscious input. Sorry mate, but there is clearly conscious input into our choices...or do you think that the conscious mind is just a scam that the subconscious is playing on you...if so why?

[volchok]

While I maintain that, to present a valid, rhetorically logical argument, you should start with an opening premise that most people will accept as true--another area in which we should agree to disagree.

What are the specific premisses you don't agree with?

-I do understand determinism

There's a post made by you in another thread that says otherwise.

When you say a statement of mine is a lie, you're calling me a liar.

Well, if your statement is in fact a lie, what do you propose? That I brush it aside in order to not offend your susceptibilities?!

But I've also said, repeatedly, that name calling isn't necessarily an ad hom fallacy. Furthermore, you obviously haven't explained "why free will is an impossibility" (despite the authorities you cited) or more people would agree with you.

See? Now this is a logical fallacy. It does not follow from me being right ( if I am) that others will agree with me.

Finally, neither of us can 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that your misspelling of Calrid's name was a simple typo--nor can either of us 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt,' that English isn't your native tongue--and, while there are several unisex names, I've never known Elizabeth Rose to be one of them. I've always said that's my name and I've always said I'm female.

Are you serious right now? You really think I would waste my time claiming to be portuguese only to be able to make typos deliberately?
Sorry but I do make typos and I'll probably continue to make them because my english is far from perfect.
I'd certainly like to see you form a coherent sentence in portuguese.

[volchok]

The whole point is that earlier in the thread you told me it was impossible to prove there was no jam in a jar with no jam in it, now you expect me to believe that you have proof that my conscious choice to pay heed to truth/knowledge is dependent upon some subconscious mechanism over which I have no control...it's back to the drawing board for you volchock.

Ok, 2 things.

I really don't expect jack shit from you anymore.
I don´t need any proof since you cannot account for why you submit when you submit and why you don't submit when you don't submit.

The proof of the pudding... if there is no conscious choice

There is a conscious choice. Caused by unconscious events.

[Chester]

The whole point is that earlier in the thread you told me it was impossible to prove there was no jam in a jar with no jam in it, now you expect me to believe that you have proof that my conscious choice to pay heed to truth/knowledge is dependent upon some subconscious mechanism over which I have no control...it's back to the drawing board for you volchock.

Ok, 2 things.

I really don't expect jack shit from you anymore.
I don´t need any proof since you cannot account for why you submit when you submit and why you don't submit when you don't submit.

The proof of the pudding... if there is no conscious choice

There is a conscious choice. Caused by unconscious events.

Fuck me, you ain't the sharpest tool in the box are you mate.

You don't need any proof for your theory, then why the fuck would anyone pay attention to it?

I can account for why I submit, I consciously choose to submit based on what I know (ie, I use my intellect). Most people sense that they consciously choose in a direct way, you're the weirdo who thinks he can't consciously decide (without that conscious decision being unconsciously caused)...therefore the onus for proof is on you .Look at it this way, our ideas are based purely on what we experience, therefore our direct experience is the ultimate measure of truth, if you ain't got that you've got nothing. We all have direct experiences of things like conscious choices or pain ...next you'll be telling us pain isn't real (in the way you think our direct experience of choice making isn't real).

I agree that everything seems to be caused by something else, but why do you have an issue with the idea that nature causes me to have a conscious intellect, that causes me to be able to make choices. Why can't my conscious intellect be the cause of my choices if it itself is caused? Surely you have come to your faulty theory through your intellect, surely even you realise that the intellect is separate from the will (even though it is driven by it)?

[volchok]

Why can't my conscious intellect be the cause of my choices if it itself is caused?

It IS the cause of your choices. But like you said, your consciousness is itself caused.

You simply cannot exert any control over what emerges into your consciousness or when.

[lizbethrose]

The kite is continuing to spin, do loops, and catch down-drafts, all of which lead to even more snarls and knots.

Much as I'd like to reply to you completely, volchok, I won't--you've yet to quote my posts completely and only cherry-pick what you want to answer--but--prove you're Portuguese--I said I couldn't. Prove that your repeated misspelling of Calrid's name was a typo--I said I couldn't. You, after all, only believe in something that can be empirically proven--even though there's no empirical proof either for or against the freedom of will. Why expect me to believe in something that can't be proven? Which is, as I've said early, your faulty premise.

[volchok]

@lizbeth

Why would I waste my time proving I'm portuguese and not a native english speaker? This is a philosophy forum, not high school. Could you be a little less juvenile?

There is empirical proof against free will, plenty of it, and the fact that you disagree with this statement doesn't change the fact that the evidence exists.

[Chester]

Why can't my conscious intellect be the cause of my choices if it itself is caused?

It IS the cause of your choices. But like you said, your consciousness is itself caused.

You simply cannot exert any control over what emerges into your consciousness or when.

That my consciousness is caused in no way implies that what I consciously think about is caused by that which caused my consciousness.As I have said, the intellect is separate from the will, and my intellect though created physically (in terms of potential) by my parents, is in no way controlled by them, I am free to learn stuff after all.

I can decide what "emerges into consciousness or when", I just did that when I decided that I'd give ten minutes of my life to responding to you...it didn't just happen as some kind of subconscious decision without conscious direction, for instance, I had to fit it into a particular time that suited me.

[Calrid]

@lizbeth

Why would I waste my time proving I'm portuguese and not a native english speaker? This is a philosophy forum, not high school. Could you be a little less juvenile?

There is empirical proof against free will, plenty of it, and the fact that you disagree with this statement doesn't change the fact that the evidence exists.

I agree, who the hell cares where you are from as long as you are not a Jew.

Your English is excellent by the way. Kudos.

[volchok]

I am free to learn stuff after all.

Statements like this show that you don´t understand the arguments I make, at all.
I have never said that people can't learn stuff. On the contrary.

I can decide what "emerges into consciousness or when",

You really can't. And the fact that you are able to argue so is insane and quite perplexing.
To think as you do, after some introspection, is to be completely out of touch with reality.

I just did that when I decided that I'd give ten minutes of my life to responding to you...

Actually the decision simply arose into your consciousness.

[lizbethrose]

@lizbeth

Why would I waste my time proving I'm portuguese and not a native english speaker? This is a philosophy forum, not high school. Could you be a little less juvenile?

There is empirical proof against free will, plenty of it, and the fact that you disagree with this statement doesn't change the fact that the evidence exists.

I agree, who the hell cares where you are from as long as you are not a Jew.

Your English is excellent by the way. Kudos.

ROTFLMAO!!!--Have fun, boys and girls!

[d63]

I've explained countless times why free will is an impossibility. I have talked about a bunch of experiments (even though I really do think that one doesn't need to hear about any of that to dismiss free will), I've posted papers and so forth.

Well then, we should be expecting that Time cover story any day soon. Certainly, the experts are in agreement now. Impressive, to say the least.

However, are you sure you’re not posting blogs and calling them papers? Because if you are, I can claim to have posted “papers” as well. But better yet, it would sound even cooler if we considered it having "published" papers, in which case chicks are gonna dig us now!

[volchok]

Well then, we should be expecting that Time cover story any day soon. Certainly, the experts are in agreement now. Impressive, to say the least.

Oh yes, I remembered! Consensus is actually more important then evidence. Sure....

However, are you sure you’re not posting blogs and calling them papers? Because if you are, I can claim to have posted “papers” as well. But better yet, it would sound even cooler if we considered it having "published" papers, in which case chicks are gonna dig us now!

Yes, I am sure actually. And so are you. But you decided to act like a retard and pose the question anyway since you know your arguments are incredibly flawed and therefor the only way to come out of this discussion seemingly untouched is to try to mock me.

[Chester]

I am free to learn stuff after all.

Statements like this show that you don´t understand the arguments I make, at all.
I have never said that people can't learn stuff. On the contrary.

I can decide what "emerges into consciousness or when",

You really can't. And the fact that you are able to argue so is insane and quite perplexing.
To think as you do, after some introspection, is to be completely out of touch with reality.

I just did that when I decided that I'd give ten minutes of my life to responding to you...

Actually the decision simply arose into your consciousness.

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 can choose what I think about and when. When I am at work I can choose to concentrate on work, when I am at home and have some spare time I can choose to respond to you. The idea that the subconscious totally controls the conscious mind is a non-starter because it is clear that the subconscious is reliant on the conscious mind for feedback. In effect the conscious mind taps into the subconscious when it wants to, though I do accept that if people are daydreaming (for instance) then ideas can "simply arise" as you put it.

[volchok]

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.