How much Free Will do we have?

[jpahmad]

 

I wouldn't give the universe credit as it did not achieve anything. 

 

People are part of the universe.  If people achieve, that means some aspect of the universe achieves.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

People are part of the universe.  If people achieve, that means some aspect of the universe achieves.

Yeah, the conscious aspect called a person because that's what achieves, not the non-conscious matter of the universe. 

[jpahmad]

Yeah, the conscious aspect called a person because that's what achieves, not the non-conscious matter of the universe. 

 

correct

 

 

 

 

 

Question:  Did Homo erectus achieve or Homo ergaster achieve?  They were certainly conscious.  What about the Neanderthal?  Homo habilis, australopithecus?  How far back must we go along the evolutionary tree before things stop achieving?  Can an ape or a dog achieve something?  Can they have personal accomplishments?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Question:  Did Homo erectus achieve or Homo ergaster achieve?  They were certainly conscious.  What about the Neanderthal?  Homo habilis, australopithecus?  How far back must we go along the evolutionary tree before things stop achieving?  Can an ape or a dog achieve something?  Can they have personal accomplishments?

I don't know. Maybe not but what I do know is that non-conscious things cannot achieve. 

[NotDarkYet]

Either arguments matter, or they don't.

 

Free will is a red herring.

[jpahmad]

I don't know. Maybe not but what I do know is that non-conscious things cannot achieve. 

 

o.k., would you say that all living things can achieve?  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

o.k., would you say that all living things can achieve?  

I don't think so, no. Achievement involves choosing to overcome a significant challenge. Most if not all animals appear to be mindlessly following programming. 

[jpahmad]

 

 

Question:  Did Homo erectus achieve or Homo ergaster achieve?  They were certainly conscious.  What about the Neanderthal?  Homo habilis, australopithecus?  How far back must we go along the evolutionary tree before things stop achieving?  Can an ape or a dog achieve something?  Can they have personal accomplishments?

 

 

Question:  Did Homo erectus achieve or Homo ergaster achieve?  They were certainly conscious.  What about the Neanderthal?  Homo habilis, australopithecus?  How far back must we go along the evolutionary tree before things stop achieving?  Can an ape or a dog achieve something?  Can they have personal accomplishments?

I don't think so, no. Achievement involves choosing to overcome a significant challenge. Most if not all animals appear to be mindlessly following programming. 

 

So then what is the answer to this question:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question:  Did Homo erectus achieve or Homo ergaster achieve?  They were certainly conscious.  What about the Neanderthal?  Homo habilis, australopithecus?  How far back must we go along the evolutionary tree before things stop achieving?  Can an ape or a dog achieve something?  Can they have personal accomplishments?

[shirgall]

Eating enough to live today is an achievement. Living long enough to reproduce is a trophy.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

So then what is the answer to this question:

Homo Erectus and Neanderthal are classifications, not agents. Classifications can't achieve anything. I can't pat Homo erectus on the back for his/her achievements. Once you start applying achievement to outside agents you're talking about something different; something more general and colloquial. I'm sure the individuals among those intelligent groups like neanderthals DID achieves bits and bobs but not much. We don't know the minds of these transitional groups so you're asking question i can only speculate on. 

[jpahmad]

 We don't know the minds of these transitional groups so you're asking question i can only speculate on. 

 

Right, we don't know the minds of individuals in these groups, nor the minds of anything else other than our own for that matter.  Therefore we can't claim (only perhaps speculate) that other living things don't make choices in the same way we do.  There is no way to know.  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Right, we don't know the minds of individuals in these groups, nor the minds of anything else other than our own for that matter.  Therefore we can't claim (only perhaps speculate) that other living things don't make choices in the same way we do.  There is no way to know.  

We can't know for sure but we can at least be pretty sure that a chicken or an ant or a slug or a trout doesn't have the capacity to have goals or make the choices required for achievement. They can't even understand the concept. But Not knowing how close some animals may be in their thinking to us doesn't say anything about the "universe" achieving. The only things we know to achieve anything are humans. The only things with free will are humans.

[jpahmad]

The only things with free will are humans.

 

So what's your argument for Neanderthals not having free will?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So what's your argument for Neanderthals not having free will?

Maybe they did. Free will exists with intelligence. 

[jpahmad]

Maybe they did. Free will exists with intelligence. 

 

well, at some point going backwards through the evolutionary tree, there must be a point where a species doesn't have enough intelligence to have free choice correct?  If so, where would this point be?

[Torero]

Of course free will exists. If not, all your choices would be determined by someone or something, for which there's no rational basis.

 

And although the statism and coercion of course are far too prevalent in the world, still we have free will at nearly any moment in life.

 

But it may be a question of definition.

 

I'd define Free Will as the option to select a path based on rational and emotional choices based on your own life experience, advice by your surroundings and a determination (so by yourself) of possible outcomes of those choices.

 

I really don't see the point where free will becomes an "illusion". What is illusionary about making choices at any moment you can?

 

You're the master of your machinery, not the slave.

 

By the way: no man has ever stepped on the surface of the Moon. It's simply impossible to go there. Don't let these people fool you; there's so much content on the topic online.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

We have way more free will than most people think.

 

Responsibility is a product of free will. It results from free will choice. To argue that there is no free will is to argue that there is no such thing as responsibility.

 

Thus anyone who comes to me arguing against free will raises my wariness level. Generally I find that they are looking to pawn their own responsibility off onto someone else.

 

Further, by pursuing more responsibility, you increase your ability to make free will choices.

 

Go get some responsibility.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

well, at some point going backwards through the evolutionary tree, there must be a point where a species doesn't have enough intelligence to have free choice correct?  If so, where would this point be?

I don't know. I don't have to know that in order for my point to be correct. 

[Torero]

The only things we know to achieve anything are humans. The only things with free will are humans.

I have to disagree with you.

 

Playfulness can be considered a result of Free Will; no reward other than pure joy.

 

Dolphins are intelligent, playful creatures. Do you reckon they don't have Free Will?

 

[jpahmad]

I don't know. I don't have to know that in order for my point to be correct. 

 

Sorry, I forgot your point.  What was it again?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Sorry, I forgot your point.  What was it again?

That only intelligent conscious beings can achieve. 

[jpahmad]

That only intelligent conscious beings can achieve. 

 

In order to achieve one must be:

 

1. Intelligent
2. Conscious 

 

Ok, that's fine, but these two things can't be defined.  So, it really doesn't mean anything.  Intelligent?  Like I said before, it is really tricky to hash out that definition because it would necessarily have to exclude a large portion of living, carbon-based individuals.  But who gets excluded, and why?  It's easy to look at a termite and say "yeah, that's not intelligent", but could you say that about a Neanderthal man or a gorilla?  If you could, then what is the anatomical basis for it?  

 

The same thing goes for "consciousness".  At what point does the complexity of an organism equal "having a conscious"?

 

 

I'm not just being "sophistical" for the sake of blabbing my mouth, for this problem has bothered me for awhile until recently when I realized (as far as I'm concerned) that consciousness is just a word we invented to describe what it feels like to be a living organism.  More specifically, what it "feels like" to have certain parts of the brain operating in a certain way.  This is why we can be unconscious but alive (sleep, surgery, etc..)

 

Therefore, I claim that there is nothing "unique" about consciousness and nothing that needs to be explained.  It's much easier to deal with the topic of "free will" with this idea settled and agreed upon.   

[Torero]

Well said jpahmad,

 

when looking at free will within humans it's rather useless to focus on animals or paleontological ancestors/relative branches. Among the first intelligence (and imo free will; if it's not, what drives dolphins to play with bubbles?) has been identified in many ways, but is still irrelevant to Homo sapiens and for the second it's impossible to verify. Proxies like tool use and cave art can be used and point to intelligence, but other than that it's a dead end (pun intended).

 

I really don't see how we humans wouldn't have free will and less that it is an "illusion", like the OP stated.

Awaiting iBlaggs arguments for those two points.

[jpahmad]

Well said jpahmad,

 

when looking at free will within humans it's rather useless to focus on animals or paleontological ancestors/relative branches. Among the first intelligence (and imo free will; if it's not, what drives dolphins to play with bubbles?) has been identified in many ways, but is still irrelevant to Homo sapiens and for the second it's impossible to verify. Proxies like tool use and cave art can be used and point to intelligence, but other than that it's a dead end (pun intended).

 

I really don't see how we humans wouldn't have free will and less that it is an "illusion", like the OP stated.

Awaiting iBlaggs arguments for those two points.

 

Oh, I certainly feel and claim that I am the one responsible for my actions.  This includes my successes and my failures.  I don't use the term "free will".  It is nonsensical and meaningless. It was invented by mystics to rationalize their power.  If you get rid of the term "free will", then there is no illusion of "free will".  Problem solved.  

 

What is there then?  Existence.  There is just existence and what it feels like to exist.  I have a functioning definition of the self and that "self" is responsible for my actions.  Since "I" = "the self", then "I" am responsible for my actions.  It is just logic. And yes, we are maid up of parts of the universe.  So what.  

 

If you want to get nitty-gritty, then you can attempt to define what the "self" is.  I've done that to my own satisfaction in my video I posted earlier in the thread.  And I gave a very general all-encompassing definition which works for me.  After I went through that exercise, and applied transitive logic to it, I was very satisfied with the results, both intellectually and most importantly, emotionally.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I have to disagree with you.

 

Playfulness can be considered a result of Free Will; no reward other than pure joy.

 

Dolphins are intelligent, playful creatures. Do you reckon they don't have Free Will?

 

There are animals that seem to lie somewhere between dumb and intelligent. They appear to have the first inklings of abstract intelligence but I see no evidence that they are in the same category as adult humans in that area. If dolphins have free will then they have moral agency. That would mean when they kill one of their own kind or us it is murder. I don't see how we can say a dolphin can be a murderer. 

In order to achieve one must be:

 

1. Intelligent
2. Conscious 

 

Ok, that's fine, but these two things can't be defined.  

What? Intelligent means capable of abstract thinking/reasoning. Conscious means self-aware. 

Stop bugging me about were the line is and when it can be said animals become intelligent. I get that's there's a grey area but it doesn't mean there isn't a clear distinction between a human and a rock. 

If there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate a a patch of grass or a tin can.

[jpahmad]

There are animals that seem to lie somewhere between dumb and intelligent. They appear to have the first inklings of abstract intelligence but I see no evidence that they are in the same category as adult humans in that area. If dolphins have free will then they have moral agency. That would mean when they kill one of their own kind or us it is murder. I don't see how we can say a dolphin can be a murderer. 

What? Intelligent means capable of abstract thinking/reasoning. Conscious means self-aware. 

Stop bugging me about were the line is and when it can be said animals become intelligent. I get that's there's a grey area but it doesn't mean there isn't a clear distinction between a human and a rock. 

If there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate a a patch of grass or a tin can.

 

Stop teabaggin me man.  You're getting upset for no reason here. We both agree that there is a grey scale here, that probably corresponds to the complexity of the brain.  I'm not saying you're not conscious for crying out loud.  I never said that.  I just said that it isn't unique, and there is no basis to claim that it is unique.  We certainly don't know what it's like to be a dog or a cat.  It seems pretty obvious that they are not as complex as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't have a degree of self-awareness.  

 

 I get that's there's a grey area but it doesn't mean there isn't a clear distinction between a human and a rock. 

 

 

I never said that there wasn't a distinction between a human and a rock.  You're putting words in my mouth.

 

 

 

If there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate a a patch of grass or a tin can.

rock's are not living things. Grass is though.  But a blade of grass doesn't have a complex brain like you with the ability to form language and reason.  Grass would certainly be on the far left end of our grey scale of consciousness.  

Look at our nervous system.  The human nervous system.  It is the most complex in the animal kingdom.  It is unique in it's complexity, but not unique in its existence, for all living things have a nervous system.  Just because a creature has a less extensive nervous system doesn't mean they don't experience pain.  Even if they don't look like it.  The same thing can be said for consciousness. 

fyi, consciousness just means that certain faculties in your brain are operating unimpeded.  That's why we can put a lab rat to sleep and claim it's unconscious, and then wake it up and claim that it is conscious.  "Self-aware" doesn't mean anything.  Its just a term we use to describe our feeling of "qualia" or the "what it's like" aspect of human cognition.  It's a descriptive term, not a definitive objective term.  "Sad" and "Happy" would be in the same category as "self-aware".

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 I'm not saying you're not conscious for crying out loud.  I never said that.  I just said that it isn't unique, and there is no basis to claim that it is unique.  We certainly don't know what it's like to be a dog or a cat.  It seems pretty obvious that they are not as complex as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't have a degree of self-awareness.  

I didn't say or imply you claimed I was unconscious. I said if there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate something non-conscious.

 

 

 

I just said that it isn't unique, and there is no basis to claim that it is unique.  We certainly don't know what it's like to be a dog or a cat.  It seems pretty obvious that they are not as complex as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't have a degree of self-awareness.

 

If there's no basis to claim consciousness is unique then what other known non-terrestrial things have consciousness? Human intelligent conscious is certainly unique as it is one of a kind. I'm not sure why you're arguing that dogs have a degree of self-awareness. 

 

 

 

Grass would certainly be on the far left end of our grey scale of consciousness. 

No, grass would be non-conscious. It would not be on any consciousness scale as it has none. 

 

 

 

Look at our nervous system.  The human nervous system.  It is the most complex in the animal kingdom.  It is unique in it's complexity, but not unique in its existence, for all living things have a nervous system.  Just because a creature has a less extensive nervous system doesn't mean they don't experience pain.  Even if they don't look like it.  The same thing can be said for consciousness. 

I don't know why you're telling me this. 

 

 

fyi, consciousness just means that certain faculties in your brain are operating unimpeded.  That's why we can put a lab rat to sleep and claim it's unconscious, and then wake it up and claim that it is conscious.  "Self-aware" doesn't mean anything.  Its just a term we use to describe our feeling of "qualia" or the "what it's like" aspect of human cognition.  It's a descriptive term, not a definitive objective term.  "Sad" and "Happy" would be in the same category as "self-aware".

Conscious means the state of being aware and responding to surroundings. Self aware means one is aware of ones self to some significant degree. There's an animal self-awareness that exists without any intelligence and then there's human self-awareness that is intelligence. Human self-awareness is unique. It's one of a kind so far. 

[jpahmad]

I didn't say or imply you claimed I was unconscious. I said if there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate something non-conscious.

 

 

 

Human consciousness is unique.  This is a no-brainer (no pun intended).  Consciousness itself though, is not unique, in that it is probably a part of the experience of all life forms.  It's only a matter of to what degree.  Human consciousness is unique only in its complexity, not existence.  It's the complexity of the human consciousness that allows me to talk to you and communicate.  I can't talk to a worm, not because it's not consciousness, but because it is not complex enough.  But to make the jump from that obvious observation to the idea that a worm has no self-awareness either is silly.  We don't know what it's like to be a worm.  

 

I think we're mixing up our use of the word "consciousness".  Sometimes we are referring to it specifically as "human consciousness" and sometimes  we are using to refer to any kind of "self-awareness" that an organism can experience.  I would like to be clear and restate my premise with this in mind.

 

My Premise:  Human consciousness is unique, but consciousness, the feeling of self-awareness, is not unique.  Consciousness is shared by all living things, it is only a difference of degree.  Just like the nervous system.

 

 

I don't know why you're telling me this. 

 

 

The nervous system is a perfect example to use to illustrate my point about consciousness.  The human nervous system is unique.  It is complex and there is nothing else like it.  That doesn't mean that nervous systems are unique.  All animals have nervous systems, it's just a matter of complexity or degree.  Just because an animal has a less complex nervous system, doesn't mean that it doesn't feel pain when poked with something sharp.  It's a matter of degree.

 

Our nervous systems give us the sensation, or experience of what we call "pain."  Our brains give us the sensation, or experience of what we call "qualia" or "consciousness".  An animals nervous system gives it the sensation of pain, maybe not to the extreme degree as we feel it, but it's there.  An animals brain gives it the sensation of "qualia"  or "consciousness", maybe not to the extreme degree as we feel it, but it's there.

Therefore, "consciousness" is not unique to human beings and doesn't have to be explained any more than the effects of our nervous system has to be explained.  Consciousness is just an effect of matter like feelings we get from the functioning of any other organ in our body.

So, if you are with me so far, than you would have to reword your initial premise from  "only intelligent conscious beings can achieve" to "only intelligent beings can achieve", omitting the word "conscious".  All animals experience the effect of the brains just like all animals experience the effect of their nervous systems.  The effect of your nervous system is "pain" and the effect of one's brain is "self-awareness", or "consciousness".  Of course, defining intelligence is another matter all together.

[A4E]

Some days after this thread was created, a light bulb appeared over my head, and I started writing down my thoughts. And I've been working on it up until this day, and now finally put it up on my website. The main goal was to try to put an end to the endless debates so that everyone can use their energy on other things.

 

Because of the camp I am trying to prove, I am scared because I like this forum. I tried to find a 'send message' option to MMD, or some other contact option, but I did not find any. So if the article that I made is unacceptable, you can just delete this post, and I will get the hint.

 

Here is the article.

[Agalloch]

Some days after this thread was created, a light bulb appeared over my head, and I started writing down my thoughts. And I've been working on it up until this day, and now finally put it up on my website. The main goal was to try to put an end to the endless debates so that everyone can use their energy on other things.

 

Because of the camp I am trying to prove, I am scared because I like this forum. I tried to find a 'send message' option to MMD, or some other contact option, but I did not find any. So if the article that I made is unacceptable, you can just delete this post, and I will get the hint.

 

Here is the article.

I do not believe moral responsibility exists

 

...

 

You can 'help' or provide for people if you want to. It is important however that the help is voluntary. If it is not voluntary, then someone is forcing you to help, which is bad

Tbh, just picking this one contradiction was incredibly difficult, your article is completely invalid at almost every point, however as your main point seems to be that moral responsibility doesn't exist, this example of you giving moral responsibility to one if the non-protected classes is pretty important.

 

Perhaps you should find out what moral responsibility is by the way? That you think it might have anything to do with the responsibility of a writer for a reader pulling on his own hair is a straw man at best and poisoning the well with arsenic at worst.

 

Tl;dr as always with these "scientific" determinist arguments, you take away moral culpability from the protected classes, but you require (its the very reason you wrote an article) that everybody else is even more morally culpable than ever.

[AnarcoB]

As you meet each day and struggle with the choices presented to you in your life, do your decisions come without effort, or do you ponder, reflect, struggle? This is free will. How deep does your struggle go? Do your decisions arise as an effect of the emotion of the moment, or are they subjected to an external standard and experience? This is free will. Do you ever question your choices or are you 100% sold on every thought that pops into your head? Could you have done any differently in the past? It doesn't seem to matter. From a practical application of the theory of free will or determinism, where it matters in our immediate experience, we have free will. To look retrospectively at whether someone could have chosen otherwise seems similar to ask the question "What if... Magic?" The present moment is where we all live. We can have wildly differing degrees of insight into our own decision making processes and I think this is where the variability of free will exists. It doesn't seem adequate to characterize this experience and physical occurrence into what most feel are mutually exclusive concepts. The question seems to be analogous to asking what is 5+3+7+2.354847234? We can discard the decimals. We are apes with language, how we approach problem solving and attempt to understand that which is not immediately apparent seems to be what matters. A term adopted as a conclusion one way or the other feels like counting angels on the head of a pin. I think determinism exists... Right next to God in a parallel universe where we will never have any tangible contact. Long live free will.

[Ray H.]

Well put, AnarcoB.

[jpahmad]

Some days after this thread was created, a light bulb appeared over my head, and I started writing down my thoughts. And I've been working on it up until this day, and now finally put it up on my website. The main goal was to try to put an end to the endless debates so that everyone can use their energy on other things.

 

Because of the camp I am trying to prove, I am scared because I like this forum. I tried to find a 'send message' option to MMD, or some other contact option, but I did not find any. So if the article that I made is unacceptable, you can just delete this post, and I will get the hint.

 

Here is the article.

 

Nice article but you fell victim to the "split-entity fallacy"

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPzJZaQBMcI

[AnarcoB]

Well put, AnarcoB.

Thanks Ray.

[A4E]

Nice article but you fell victim to the "split-entity fallacy"

 

 

In the video he speaks of an entity that he calls "The self". Does the entity called "The self" exist? If so, does it exist in all humans? If so, does it exist in animals? If so, does it exist in insects? If so, does it exist in rocks?

 

Why is this entity assumed to be separate from the person? (with person, I mean the whole body of the person, including the brain.)

 

If I say "The person in this location that is writing this now do not understand the logic from the person in the location that wrote the post that is quoted.", Did I make a split entity fallacy?

 

Would you agree that using words like "I" and "you" are far easier words to use instead of "this person in this location" and "that person in that location" ?

 

Also, I am genuinely interested in what happens with your logic when this occurs: