The Freedom of Becoming and the Becoming of Freedom

[Jakethehuman]

This was tough to read so not sure I really got it, looking for some help!

 

I think the point is that we need more than just physical freedom to be truly free. This is something Stef has talked about a little bit, the idea that when people aren't utilising their conscious rational minds to make important decisions in life, they are living close to a deterministic life. When someone has bad genes, and bad parents/ early environment they are as close to real determinism as possible. 
So to be truly free you have to rid yourself of the trauma and dysfunction everyone has, and be mindful of all of your thoughts and behaviours. 

 

I agree 99%, however this seems to imply that one can never be 100% free because, it would seem to me, it is impossible to be 100% released from some of the negative biases and behaviours instilled in our early development, and if there are any behaviours of which our conscious thinking brain is not the sole determinator of, we aren't completely free.

 

 

PiP 24 Jun.pdf

[Kikker]

Well you seem to be mostly projecting onto the text.

 

The piece Dr. Birchall wrote begins about a problem in analytical philosophy in general which he calls "phenomenological blindness". He explains that it is the tendency to  define things in relation to other things, which is deluding the debate about freewill. This is because relation implies causation and causation implies compulsion. In the way that we define freewill (in relation to), it can not exist, as any cause of freewill would make freewill compulsory which is a contradiction. Out of that contradiction 3 different philosophical standpoints can be  made. 1. Is determinism which could be summarized to the notion: Freewill can't be caused therefore it doesn't exist. 2: indeterminism which could be summarized into the notion: Freewill exists, since freewill can be vaguely observed,  therefore it isn't caused. 3: Any middle position which can be summarized as: giving freewill some wiggle room in a deterministic world.

 

Dr. Birchall standpoint is, is that the embodiment of freewill (a human body) is caused but the embodiment of freewill doesn't explain the whole picture. After that he  points out that things don't need to be caused in order to exist and proposes to define Free will as: with and becoming instead of in relation to and being. He also seems to support Aristotle with his version of destiny and Nietzsche concerning mass culture.

[Jakethehuman]

Well you seem to be mostly projecting onto the text.

 

The piece Dr. Birchall wrote begins about a problem in analytical philosophy in general which he calls "phenomenological blindness". He explains that it is the tendency to define things in relation to other things, which is deluding the debate about freewill. This is because relation implies causation and causation implies compulsion. In the way that we define freewill (in relation to), it can not exist, as any cause of freewill would make freewill compulsory which is a contradiction. Out of that contradiction 3 different philosophical standpoints can be made. 1. Is determinism which could be summarized to the notion: Freewill can't be caused therefore it doesn't exist. 2: indeterminism which could be summarized into the notion: Freewill exists, since freewill can be vaguely observed, therefore it isn't caused. 3: Any middle position which can be summarized as: giving freewill some wiggle room in a deterministic world.

 

Dr. Birchall standpoint is, is that the embodiment of freewill (a human body) is caused but the embodiment of freewill doesn't explain the whole picture. After that he points out that things don't need to be caused in order to exist and proposes to define Free will as: with and becoming instead of in relation to and being. He also seems to support Aristotle with his version of destiny and Nietzsche concerning mass culture.

Thanks you helped a lot! You don't think I was on the right track at all?

 

Well I find it hard to imagine that things can exist without a cause, maybe I still don't understand, free will is the exercise of certain parts of the brain, real physical processes. Free will is just being able to make decisions for yourself, if all of your decisions are based on two main things, prior experience and conscious thought, it seems to follow that the cause of your decisions are, either unthinking reaction to stimuli flavoured by prejudice, or the adherence to logical thought, which must be everywhere the same, because you can't have two logical (correct) and differing opinions on the one problem.

 

I'm not a determinist btw just intrigued by this stuff all of a sudden.

[Jakethehuman]

I should also ask what are your views on the subject?

[Kikker]

Thanks you helped a lot! You don't think I was on the right track at all?

 

Well I find it hard to imagine that things can exist without a cause, maybe I still don't understand, free will is the exercise of certain parts of the brain, real physical processes. Free will is just being able to make decisions for yourself, if all of your decisions are based on two main things, prior experience and conscious thought, it seems to follow that the cause of your decisions are, either unthinking reaction to stimuli flavoured by prejudice, or the adherence to logical thought, which must be everywhere the same, because you can't have two logical (correct) and differing opinions on the one problem.

 

I'm not a determinist btw just intrigued by this stuff all of a sudden.

You tried to generalize a meaning out of his text without referencing the text, that suggests that you don't understand the text. The fact that you responded with an argument which doesn't relate to the text confirmed my suspicion. To explain: the text already said that the embodiment of Free will is caused (and thus deterministic) but you respond by saying that someone can never be truly free of causation because you still hold biases, which is obviously part of the embodiment of Free will (according to the text).

 

 It's more likely the point that things exist without a cause but don't have to be defined that way. But you (or I) would probably need to brush up our knowledge of logic in order to fully understand that statement.

 

You seem to support Kant's version of free will in which where he proclaims that exercising free will is to obligate yourself to universal morality (rough translation).

 

I should also ask what are your views on the subject?

Well I would say that my will is determined in the sense that it is caused, while I also would argue that free will is a contradiction. First of causation is more than environment like you seem to believe. Ideas are also caused and cause decisions, for example by reading this topic you're influencing the way you respond to the question "is there free will". If you concede this point that all aspects of decision making are caused then where does Free will fit in? If all aspects of your decisions are caused except for the free will you exercise in that decision what is free will then? It becomes a empty term with no meaning. You will have to redefine free will, instead of "free from anything" you redefine to "free from something" in which something can refer to coercion, physical restraint or force. Now you run into the problem of will because your will is also caused making coercing others also involuntary. And if your will isn't caused then what is it, if it's unpredictable then why do you even want your will to be free?

 

Point being that a Rational decision is a caused decision and a uncaused decision, whether that exists or not, would be a unpredictable one.

 

Doesn't mean people aren't responsible for their actions, I'll explain if you ask but I have not all the time in the world.

[Jakethehuman]

You seem to support Kant's version of free will in which where he proclaims that exercising free will is to obligate yourself to universal morality (rough translation).

 

I have not read Kant but that sounds like what I was thinking, although I'm not sure anymore. So it is still Free will because cause does not = compulsion, ie the cause of my not hurting people is because of the NAP, Golden Rule etc but I still decided to choose the moral path?

 

Somewhere in the brain all of the stimuli (yes including ideas) get jumbled together and at some point we get to decide. It seems that if you don't believe in anything supernatural, with a sufficiently advanced technology every neural network of the brain could be mapped and tracked, every experience and variable could be taken into account and a computer will tell you what decisions a person is going to make. Since nature has created the brain, and not some divine being, given enough time I'm sure we can make a perfect copy of it. This means we either find the "choice center" and discover how we are able to make contradictory decisions, or else we see that despite the incredible complexity we are just a result of traceable and predictable biochemical reactions. 

 

Even if we aren't responsible for our actions a society that let people off the hook would end up changing the environment in such a way as to make more people "choose" the wrong path.

 

I think it is likely that there is something in the brain that enables us to go against the grain of our entire experience and do something a computer wouldn't predict. This could just be my ego wanting to have ownership of itself.

 

No I don't want you to spend too much time on it, I have a lot more reading to do, only respond if you really want to!

[Kikker]

I have not read Kant but that sounds like what I was thinking, although I'm not sure anymore. So it is still Free will because cause does not = compulsion, ie the cause of my not hurting people is because of the NAP, Golden Rule etc but I still decided to choose the moral path?

 

Somewhere in the brain all of the stimuli (yes including ideas) get jumbled together and at some point we get to decide. It seems that if you don't believe in anything supernatural, with a sufficiently advanced technology every neural network of the brain could be mapped and tracked, every experience and variable could be taken into account and a computer will tell you what decisions a person is going to make. Since nature has created the brain, and not some divine being, given enough time I'm sure we can make a perfect copy of it. This means we either find the "choice center" and discover how we are able to make contradictory decisions, or else we see that despite the incredible complexity we are just a result of traceable and predictable biochemical reactions. 

 

Even if we aren't responsible for our actions a society that let people off the hook would end up changing the environment in such a way as to make more people "choose" the wrong path.

 

I think it is likely that there is something in the brain that enables us to go against the grain of our entire experience and do something a computer wouldn't predict. This could just be my ego wanting to have ownership of itself.

 

No I don't want you to spend too much time on it, I have a lot more reading to do, only respond if you really want to!

Yes in franklins experiment with doctor black he provides the argument that you don't need alternative options in order to exercise free will. The thought experiment goes something like this:

 

Dexter is planning to rob a bank, he does this because he wants to and is already planning for multiple weeks. What he doesn't know is that a mad scientist, doctor Black is observing him. Doctor Black really wants Dexter to rob that bank, so before the robbery he implants a chip into Dexter's head within him knowing. That chip will activate when Dexter suddenly stops trying to rob the bank and will force him to rob the bank anyways. On the day of the robbery Dexter robs the bank and the chip didn't need to be activated.

 

Did Dexter rob the bank out of free will, even though he had no alternative actions?

 

 

Furthermore determinism doesn't mean a person isn't responsible for his/her actions. You can still have a "bad brain" which produces unwanted consequences in very normal or common circumstances. Determinism makes retaliation impossible but doesn't prevent people from protecting themselves, rehabilitating people and deterring other people to perform criminal acts. The main factor in punishment would be repeatability, if a person is very prone to murder someone again then he/she could easily face a life sentence if that chance doesn't change. On the other hand if a person murdered someone but changes her/himself to the point that it is very unlikely to happen again then he/she could possibly be released in a few months.

 

A brain that goes against any experience is random, not something to be proud of or to strife for I would say.

[Jakethehuman]

"free from any vicissitude not of its own making"

Here he is saying that a philosophical mind can shed the weight of deterministic experience?

 

"They are compatable in the sense that freedom of becoming is embodied, yet incompatible in the sense that the freedom of becoming cannot be explained by its embodiment"

 

Is he saying that freedom is seen in the choices we make, yet we can't use these choices as evidence for freedom because choices aren't always a result of a free mind?

 

So I feel like he is trying to say being free can only be a result of philosophical thought, which is like you say Kantian in origin, because Philosophy is Truth, as solid as 193+11=204. So if we follow these principles we only have one real choice.