Free will - have we polled this?

[arahant]

I know we've covered this somewhere, not sure we've polled...I'm not going to bias this poll with commentary...let's start with the facts...Feel free to comment.
Edit: I decline to say what 'I' mean by free will...don't be too analytic about it.

[Prodigy54321]

this won't get anywhere meaningful without defining exactly what you mean by "free will"..and that, in itself, is quite a task /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I know we've covered this somewhere, not sure we've polled...I'm not going to bias this poll with commentary...let's start with the facts...Feel free to comment.

[/ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter but yes. Yet it matters so much more. I mean if not it doesn't matter, but if yes it matter alot. But it's generally a semantic argument, and not worht the time discussing.

[valenzuela]

[DougShrapnel]

awesome question valen.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
this won't get anywhere meaningful without defining exactly what you mean by "free will"..and that, in itself, is quite a task /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely. I'm hoping everyone will define it as they see fit. Pretend you are on the witness stand, and must answer yes or no...Or answer yes/no, then define what you think of as free will.

[Skidoo]

Pasting the working definition I used in another thread:

free = to have no external determinants

will = conscious purpose

free will = conscious purpose without external determinants

[arahant]

lol...at least the results are consistent so far /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
lol...at least the results are consistent so far /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Well I say maybe for the first one, and yes for the 2nd

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's generally a semantic argument, and not worht the time discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider responsibility to be a semantics issue, then fine, but I think it's much, much more important than that. At least the way our society works as of today and anytime in the near future.

See, when you understand that every human action is just as determined as the tides and the Earth's orbit around the Sun, when you understand that the universe is a whole bunch of particles bumping against each other, you see that the only reason to consider each human being a separate entity and adjudicating responsibility to it, is to alter it's future behavior, and other's.

No, I do not think discussing this is a waste of time.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it's generally a semantic argument, and not worht the time discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider responsibility to be a semantics issue, then fine, but I think it's much, much more important than that. At least the way our society works as of today and anytime in the near future.

See, when you understand that every human action is just as determined as the tides and the Earth's orbit around the Sun, when you understand that the universe is a whole bunch of particles bumping against each other, you see that the only reason to consider each human being a separate entity and adjudicating responsibility to it, is to alter it's future behavior, and other's.

No, I do not think discussing this is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was nicely put. Kind of a Zen Materialism /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
every human action is just as determined as the tides and the Earth's orbit around the Sun

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you need him?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
every human action is just as determined as the tides and the Earth's orbit around the Sun

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you need him?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't understand analogies, don't try to use them.

[Borodog]

[Skidoo]

Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a number of experiments.

Edit: For those of you not familiar with them, I'll summarize two...does this sort of thing make any of the 'no' responders feel any more ambivalent about their response?

1) When asked to sit in a chair and move one hand (either hand), right-handed individuals will choose to move their right hand 60% of the time. Transcranial stimulation (using a magnetic field on the exterior of the head) can induce these same people to 'choose' to move their left hand 80% of the time. In all cases, all subjects report that they were fully in control of their choice.

2) (less convincing, maybe). Subjects are instructed to look at a 'clock', and a point of their choosing, to move their hand. The time of movement is recorded, and the subject is then asked WHEN he made the decision to move his hand. The reported decision time always precedes the time of movement. HOWEVER...voluntary movements are always preceded by a preparatory electric potential in the nervous system...this potential is detected well BEFORE the subject reports that they decided to move. Hence, the conscious decision to move is, at a minimum, EXPERIENCED after the process has been set in motion.

[Skidoo]

Citations, please.

[valenzuela]

What about my question? Is there any moment in youre life in which you could have acted on a different way??

[madnak]

I think there's more, too, but it's pretty much irrelevant. Ah well, casual societal assumptions over reason ftw!

[arahant]

cites contained in this Wiki Section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Neuroscience_and_free_will) . To these and several other experiments.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a number of experiments.

Edit: For those of you not familiar with them, I'll summarize two...does this sort of thing make any of the 'no' responders feel any more ambivalent about their response?

1) When asked to sit in a chair and move one hand (either hand), right-handed individuals will choose to move their right hand 60% of the time. Transcranial stimulation (using a magnetic field on the exterior of the head) can induce these same people to 'choose' to move their left hand 80% of the time. In all cases, all subjects report that they were fully in control of their choice.

2) (less convincing, maybe). Subjects are instructed to look at a 'clock', and a point of their choosing, to move their hand. The time of movement is recorded, and the subject is then asked WHEN he made the decision to move his hand. The reported decision time always precedes the time of movement. HOWEVER...voluntary movements are always preceded by a preparatory electric potential in the nervous system...this potential is detected well BEFORE the subject reports that they decided to move. Hence, the conscious decision to move is, at a minimum, EXPERIENCED after the process has been set in motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not applicable.

Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a person act in spite of such influences if he had no desire to?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a number of experiments.

Edit: For those of you not familiar with them, I'll summarize two...does this sort of thing make any of the 'no' responders feel any more ambivalent about their response?

1) When asked to sit in a chair and move one hand (either hand), right-handed individuals will choose to move their right hand 60% of the time. Transcranial stimulation (using a magnetic field on the exterior of the head) can induce these same people to 'choose' to move their left hand 80% of the time. In all cases, all subjects report that they were fully in control of their choice.

2) (less convincing, maybe). Subjects are instructed to look at a 'clock', and a point of their choosing, to move their hand. The time of movement is recorded, and the subject is then asked WHEN he made the decision to move his hand. The reported decision time always precedes the time of movement. HOWEVER...voluntary movements are always preceded by a preparatory electric potential in the nervous system...this potential is detected well BEFORE the subject reports that they decided to move. Hence, the conscious decision to move is, at a minimum, EXPERIENCED after the process has been set in motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not applicable.

Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? You asked if the "illusion of free will" had been observed. Are you trying to say that people believing they freely chose to move their left hand when they were clearly forced to do so by an external factor isn't the 'illusion of free will'? What is your defintion of 'illusion of free will' here?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a person act in spite of such influences if he had no desire to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people do that often? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a number of experiments.

Edit: For those of you not familiar with them, I'll summarize two...does this sort of thing make any of the 'no' responders feel any more ambivalent about their response?

1) When asked to sit in a chair and move one hand (either hand), right-handed individuals will choose to move their right hand 60% of the time. Transcranial stimulation (using a magnetic field on the exterior of the head) can induce these same people to 'choose' to move their left hand 80% of the time. In all cases, all subjects report that they were fully in control of their choice.

2) (less convincing, maybe). Subjects are instructed to look at a 'clock', and a point of their choosing, to move their hand. The time of movement is recorded, and the subject is then asked WHEN he made the decision to move his hand. The reported decision time always precedes the time of movement. HOWEVER...voluntary movements are always preceded by a preparatory electric potential in the nervous system...this potential is detected well BEFORE the subject reports that they decided to move. Hence, the conscious decision to move is, at a minimum, EXPERIENCED after the process has been set in motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not applicable.

Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? You asked if the "illusion of free will" had been observed. Are you trying to say that people believing they freely chose to move their left hand when they were clearly forced to do so by an external factor isn't the 'illusion of free will'? What is your defintion of 'illusion of free will' here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not show they were "forced" to do anything they were unable to choose to not do. Free will remained.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a person act in spite of such influences if he had no desire to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people do that often? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, never. People never act in a certain way despite their influences. Why would they?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
People never act in a certain way despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big negative to prove.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People never act in a certain way despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big negative to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

well come up with one example where someone would. i would ask you why someone would do so, but the why is a determinant factor so i guess i can't ask that. you are saying there are at least some instances when our free will has an effect on our actions (most people believing in free will would claim that it has an effect on a great deal of our actions, and probably all of our important ones), that is that we act in a certain way when there is absolutely no reason to.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Of course not! You are influenced by your desire to stay in shape, look good, feel healthy, become speedier. The runner may have desired to sit and watch TV, but the desire to run was stronger.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a number of experiments.

Edit: For those of you not familiar with them, I'll summarize two...does this sort of thing make any of the 'no' responders feel any more ambivalent about their response?

1) When asked to sit in a chair and move one hand (either hand), right-handed individuals will choose to move their right hand 60% of the time. Transcranial stimulation (using a magnetic field on the exterior of the head) can induce these same people to 'choose' to move their left hand 80% of the time. In all cases, all subjects report that they were fully in control of their choice.

2) (less convincing, maybe). Subjects are instructed to look at a 'clock', and a point of their choosing, to move their hand. The time of movement is recorded, and the subject is then asked WHEN he made the decision to move his hand. The reported decision time always precedes the time of movement. HOWEVER...voluntary movements are always preceded by a preparatory electric potential in the nervous system...this potential is detected well BEFORE the subject reports that they decided to move. Hence, the conscious decision to move is, at a minimum, EXPERIENCED after the process has been set in motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not applicable.

Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? You asked if the "illusion of free will" had been observed. Are you trying to say that people believing they freely chose to move their left hand when they were clearly forced to do so by an external factor isn't the 'illusion of free will'? What is your defintion of 'illusion of free will' here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not show they were "forced" to do anything they were unable to choose to not do. Free will remained.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they did something that they would normally NOT 'choose' to do, and felt that they WOULD normally 'choose' to do it. "Free" implies just that...unimpeded, complete control to choose either of two physically possible options.

Are you being willfully obtuse?
Please define 'illusion of free will', and I will provide you with an experimental demonstration of it, assuming you have a testable definition in mind.

Should I just assume that every time you ask for evidence of something, it is a rhetorical question?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

rofl, we're not going THAT deep into the human psyche are we /images/graemlins/tongue.gif...

c'mon guy..the pool is mad deep and you're floating on the surface

FWIW, you seem to think that the truth of even this issue cannot be known for certain (or even too close to it for that matter)...and I would agree with that.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Of course not! You are influenced by your desire to stay in shape, look good, feel healthy, become speedier. The runner may have desired to sit and watch TV, but the desire to run was stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're stating that those preexisting influences are enough to account for my actions without the contribution of goal-oriented conscious free choice, then I must ask you to provide proof of that assertion.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Of course not! You are influenced by your desire to stay in shape, look good, feel healthy, become speedier. The runner may have desired to sit and watch TV, but the desire to run was stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're stating that those preexisting influences are enough to account for my actions without the contribution of goal-oriented conscious free choice, then I must ask you to provide proof of that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

goal-oriented conscious free choice?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Free" implies just that...unimpeded, complete control to choose either of two physically possible options.

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not demonstrate the necessary absence of the ability to choose either option, which is what free will implies. All that is shown is a biasing material circumstance, something free will does not presuppose the absence of, conscious or otherwise.

I doubt the existence of the illusion of free will, so you'll have to find your own definition.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Of course not! You are influenced by your desire to stay in shape, look good, feel healthy, become speedier. The runner may have desired to sit and watch TV, but the desire to run was stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're stating that those preexisting influences are enough to account for my actions without the contribution of goal-oriented conscious free choice, then I must ask you to provide proof of that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

goal-oriented conscious free choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it sometime.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well come up with one example where someone would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running a mile rather than having a quick couple of drinks in front of the TV is an example of someone acting despite their influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Of course not! You are influenced by your desire to stay in shape, look good, feel healthy, become speedier. The runner may have desired to sit and watch TV, but the desire to run was stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're stating that those preexisting influences are enough to account for my actions without the contribution of goal-oriented conscious free choice, then I must ask you to provide proof of that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

goal-oriented conscious free choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have no idea what free will is. i should have realized this earlier.

[valenzuela]

A question:
Are you conscious of why you feel atraction towards a girl?
You dont really know what triggers the atraction, it just happens. However the atraction happened for a reason, and your consience had no say at all.
The reason atraction happenes is because it necesarry for the human race, if there is exactly 0 male intrested in vagina we die.

The subconscious forces most males into having contact with females. If males dont deliver the subconsiouc punishes the male with suffering. If the male does what he is supposed to do the subconsious rewards him with happiness.

I dont see the " free" part on free will

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Free" implies just that...unimpeded, complete control to choose either of two physically possible options.

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not demonstrate the necessary absence of the ability to choose either option, which is what free will implies. All that is shown is a biasing material circumstance, something free will does not presuppose the absence of, conscious or otherwise.

I doubt the existence of the illusion of free will, so you'll have to find your own definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You doubt the existence of something YOU CAN'T DEFINE?
This is called 'functional retardation'

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you have no idea what free will is. i should have realized this earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can probably count on my hand the number of free will supernaturalists who do.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Free" implies just that...unimpeded, complete control to choose either of two physically possible options.

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not demonstrate the necessary absence of the ability to choose either option, which is what free will implies. All that is shown is a biasing material circumstance, something free will does not presuppose the absence of, conscious or otherwise.

I doubt the existence of the illusion of free will, so you'll have to find your own definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You doubt the existence of something YOU CAN'T DEFINE?
This is called 'functional retardation'

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, so I'll help you out:

Something that is undefined generally doesn't exist.

[gull]

Hume made an interesting observation about free will once.

It was along the lines of: personality is evidence for no free will.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Free" implies just that...unimpeded, complete control to choose either of two physically possible options.

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not demonstrate the necessary absence of the ability to choose either option, which is what free will implies. All that is shown is a biasing material circumstance, something free will does not presuppose the absence of, conscious or otherwise.

I doubt the existence of the illusion of free will, so you'll have to find your own definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the people in the magnet group WOULD have chosen left instead of right had their magnets not been on. The magnet CAUSED them to choose right. And yet they are just as sure as the control group that they were fully in control of their decisions. How can this be any clearer of a representation of the illusion of free will? If it was 100% instead of 80% would that suffice?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Free" implies just that...unimpeded, complete control to choose either of two physically possible options.

[/ QUOTE ]

The experiment does not demonstrate the necessary absence of the ability to choose either option, which is what free will implies. All that is shown is a biasing material circumstance, something free will does not presuppose the absence of, conscious or otherwise.

I doubt the existence of the illusion of free will, so you'll have to find your own definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the people in the magnet group WOULD have chosen left instead of right had their magnets not been on. The magnet CAUSED them to choose right. And yet they are just as sure as the control group that they were fully in control of their decisions. How can this be any clearer of a representation of the illusion of free will? If it was 100% instead of 80% would that suffice?

[/ QUOTE ]
Needless to say this does nothing to prove that free will exists or doesnt. It just goes to show that, at least in some circumstances, you might think you are freely choosing when you are definitely not.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the people in the magnet group WOULD have chosen left instead of right had their magnets not been on. The magnet CAUSED them to choose right. And yet they are just as sure as the control group that they were fully in control of their decisions. How can this be any clearer of a representation of the illusion of free will? If it was 100% instead of 80% would that suffice?

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence doesn't say anything about the final causes of their decisions, but only that the magnetic field contributed an influence to the process. Nowhere is it shown that they lost all or part of their power to overrule the magnetism and make an independent choice on the basis of their own variables in spite of conditions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the people in the magnet group WOULD have chosen left instead of right had their magnets not been on. The magnet CAUSED them to choose right. And yet they are just as sure as the control group that they were fully in control of their decisions. How can this be any clearer of a representation of the illusion of free will? If it was 100% instead of 80% would that suffice?

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence doesn't say anything about the final causes of their decisions, but only that the magnetic field contributed an influence to the process. Nowhere is it shown that they lost all or part of their power to overrule the magnetism and make an independent choice on the basis of their own variables in spite of conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words nothing could possibly convince you. Does hypnosis count as a good example?

[vhawk01]

Also, by using the term 'final cause' are you implying that free will is a causeless phenomenon? Thats sort of what it seems like you are saying. You are saying that, while stimuli, etc., can impact the decision, they are not necessary, and it is possible to initiate something entirely novel with your free will. Does this violate causality? If nothing causes the free will, which seems to be what you are saying (otherwise how can it be free as you are using the term) we seem to have a problem.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the people in the magnet group WOULD have chosen left instead of right had their magnets not been on. The magnet CAUSED them to choose right. And yet they are just as sure as the control group that they were fully in control of their decisions. How can this be any clearer of a representation of the illusion of free will? If it was 100% instead of 80% would that suffice?

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence doesn't say anything about the final causes of their decisions, but only that the magnetic field contributed an influence to the process. Nowhere is it shown that they lost all or part of their power to overrule the magnetism and make an independent choice on the basis of their own variables in spite of conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words nothing could possibly convince you. Does hypnosis count as a good example?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about convincing me. It's about presenting your best argument.

Hypnosis can remove free will, I suppose, but is what remains an "illusion" of what was lost? Probably not.

[vhawk01]

You dont think the people who are acting think they are acting on purpose? At least in some cases?


EDIT: Scratch that, I'm just gonna take your last post as you conceding a point for (I think) the first time ever on this forum.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, by using the term 'final cause' are you implying that free will is a causeless phenomenon? Thats sort of what it seems like you are saying. You are saying that, while stimuli, etc., can impact the decision, they are not necessary, and it is possible to initiate something entirely novel with your free will. Does this violate causality? If nothing causes the free will, which seems to be what you are saying (otherwise how can it be free as you are using the term) we seem to have a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah. I thought it was understood, but if so we probably wouldn't be having this discussion: free will is a first cause in itself, otherwise it would be deterministic and thus not free.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, by using the term 'final cause' are you implying that free will is a causeless phenomenon? Thats sort of what it seems like you are saying. You are saying that, while stimuli, etc., can impact the decision, they are not necessary, and it is possible to initiate something entirely novel with your free will. Does this violate causality? If nothing causes the free will, which seems to be what you are saying (otherwise how can it be free as you are using the term) we seem to have a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah. I thought it was understood, but if so we probably wouldn't be having this discussion: free will is a first cause in itself, otherwise it would be deterministic and thus not free.

[/ QUOTE ]

It definitely was not understood, at least not by me, but thats an interesting point. I don't know that I've specifically heard anyone claim that free will was a first cause, but you are right, it seems the only way for true free will to exist.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, by using the term 'final cause' are you implying that free will is a causeless phenomenon? Thats sort of what it seems like you are saying. You are saying that, while stimuli, etc., can impact the decision, they are not necessary, and it is possible to initiate something entirely novel with your free will. Does this violate causality? If nothing causes the free will, which seems to be what you are saying (otherwise how can it be free as you are using the term) we seem to have a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah. I thought it was understood, but if so we probably wouldn't be having this discussion: free will is a first cause in itself, otherwise it would be deterministic and thus not free.

[/ QUOTE ]

It definitely was not understood, at least not by me, but thats an interesting point. I don't know that I've specifically heard anyone claim that free will was a first cause, but you are right, it seems the only way for true free will to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have mentioned that detail earlier and spared many.

[vhawk01]

Ok, so will you admit we've shown that the illusion of free will definitely happens?

I dont really know the value of this, except to possibly show that, if we are sometimes wrong about whether we have free will or not, and we don't know the difference between the times we do and the times we dont, then its at least possible that we never do. Maybe it goes to discredit the "my personal experience is proof to me of my free will" argument?

[vhawk01]

And as an aside, how does your view of free will as a first cause allow you to believe in causality?

[madnak]

I really hate to point this out, but hypnosis doesn't remove free will, even on the compatibilist level. It does enhance suggestibility, but it doesn't really affect decisions. The primary skill of stage hypnotists is finding suggestible people who want to "act hypnotized." In reality hypnosis is basically deep relaxation, nothing more.

[Skidoo]

The concept of the illusion of free will makes no sense to me. If someone is aware of themselves enough to experience a will as their own, then it must be under their control. Perceiving your will, or your body, as under your control while simultaneously having it controlled by an outside force doesn't seem possible.

As for causality, some events are deterministic, among the remainder some happen at random and others are the product of free will.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason atraction happenes is because it necesarry for the human race, if there is exactly 0 male intrested in vagina we die.

The subconscious forces most males into having contact with females. If males dont deliver the subconsiouc punishes the male with suffering. If the male does what he is supposed to do the subconsious rewards him with happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

There are many reasons why men want pussy, but "the survival of the species" is only relevant at the evolutionary level, not from a psychic analysis. It evolved this way because of obvious natural selection, but the individual doesn't inherently wish for the continuation of the species. The individual wishes for satisfactions, and pussy is one of such kind.

The subconscious doesn't "force" people. It's a part of them, probably more important than the conscious one.

However I agree on your general view about free will

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has an illusion of free will ever been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a number of experiments.

Edit: For those of you not familiar with them, I'll summarize two...does this sort of thing make any of the 'no' responders feel any more ambivalent about their response?

1) When asked to sit in a chair and move one hand (either hand), right-handed individuals will choose to move their right hand 60% of the time. Transcranial stimulation (using a magnetic field on the exterior of the head) can induce these same people to 'choose' to move their left hand 80% of the time. In all cases, all subjects report that they were fully in control of their choice.

2) (less convincing, maybe). Subjects are instructed to look at a 'clock', and a point of their choosing, to move their hand. The time of movement is recorded, and the subject is then asked WHEN he made the decision to move his hand. The reported decision time always precedes the time of movement. HOWEVER...voluntary movements are always preceded by a preparatory electric potential in the nervous system...this potential is detected well BEFORE the subject reports that they decided to move. Hence, the conscious decision to move is, at a minimum, EXPERIENCED after the process has been set in motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not applicable.

Free will is not about being without material factors contributing to or influencing behavior, even unconsciously. Free will is the capacity to consciously determine to act a certain way in spite of such influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest that you study neo-cortical engineering, you will find that the neocortex (the part of the brain responsible for pretty much all 'willed' thought and movement, along with deduction, decision making. It's the 'consciously determining' part of the brain.) is pretty much just an ongoing physical algorithm that changes and adapts in response to its input that it receives.

If modern neurology is correct (and the new stuff developed by Jeff Hawkins most likely is), free will cannot exist.

[Skidoo]

I will look into what you suggest. No doubt describing the neocortex as a "physical algorithm that changes and adapts in response to its input" is correct, but is it also complete? And can free will be reduced to such processes?

[Magic_Man]

Don't have much new to say, but I just posted this in a different thread because I got sidetracked, and thought I'd copy it here in case it stimulates something:

I voted "exists," but I'm starting to have second thoughts. I have a friend at school who pulled out the old determinism school of thought a while back. I asked him if he thought that if I gave him the state of every particle in the universe, and he had a working "theory of everything," whether he could then predict the future 100% accurately. He answered yes, I answered no, with the basic explanation of randomness involved in quantum theory. I've always thought this equated with an argument about free will, but thinking about it, they are separate issues. The universe can be non-deterministic in this sense, and free will can still not exist. Just because the output of the wave functions of all our brain's particles is not predetermined doesn't mean that we necessarily have the ability to affect the output. I'm getting dizzy...

~MagicMan

[vhawk01]

And madnak will argue with you that the world can be deterministic and free will still exist. He makes it sound convincing, and yet at the end of the day I am not convinced. But read more on compatibilism if you are interested.