4 ms·

> Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from bas

> Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains and describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will". I prefer to say that the thing we call "free will" is simply a confusion of ideas and it doesn't really make sense to talk about free wills or unfree wills. That's often the case with longstanding philosophical problems, which often began with superstition and then had centuries of extremely intelligent people devising concepts and arguments to justify and validate them. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ See in particular, 3.3.

narag 11y ago
Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!! describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will" That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric concept at all, but the absence of obstacles. You just ignored it, invoking exactly the falacy I mentioned: "except in a very limited sense". Why is it "very limited"? You don't even try to justify that qualification. And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. No, that's the most simple and truthful intuition. The complication comes from people trying to apply abstractions out of place and concluding that nothing heavier than air can fly.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  Maybe I misunderstand, but your definition of free will seemed to me to be a tautological "free will is the freedom to choose among possible alternatives." To my reading, you did not address what it actually means to choose, which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another. > And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact event that occurs after a decision is already made in the brain as a consequence of how it synthesizes different instincts and stimuli. Anytime you think to yourself "I'm going to do this", that decision was already made before you were even aware of it. > We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us. What does that mean? Do you have any evidence that, given the same circumstances, I could have chosen to do something differently? Or it is just a bunch of hypothetical navel-gazing? The Stanford encyclopedia link is a great read.
  - narag 11y ago
    Maybe I misunderstand Yes you do. which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another "Implies". Hmmm... no. You're stubbornly insisting in the wrong mental frame that muds the waters, where the self is outside nature. That's a relic of religious thought. That vision has no support from science at all. Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact event That doesn't follow my question, just returned to your absurd premises and described what you think it happens based on them. What does that mean? We're not free in a vacuum means that we don't get to choose that we like food, sex or games. It means that we get to choose our behaviour to feed, have sex or play at different times or delay gratification to optimize satisfaction for our whishes. Actually we're also free, to a certain extent, to change ourselves, to refine our tastes, to train our body, to increase our will power observing how it works and controling our reactions predicting them. Do you have any evidence that, given the same circumstances, I could have chosen to do something differently? The same circumstances!!! Do you realize how absurd is what you're asking for? So freedom for you consist in the ability to contradict nature laws? No wonder you think it doesn't exist. The Stanford encyclopedia link is a great read. Fine, you're not going to get bored.

narag 11y ago

Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!! describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will" That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric concept at all, but the absence of obstacles. You just ignored it, invoking exactly the falacy I mentioned: "except in a very limited sense". Why is it "very limited"? You don't even try to justify that qualification. And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. No, that's the most simple and truthful intuition. The complication comes from people trying to apply abstractions out of place and concluding that nothing heavier than air can fly.

Amezarak 11y ago
Maybe I misunderstand, but your definition of free will seemed to me to be a tautological "free will is the freedom to choose among possible alternatives." To my reading, you did not address what it actually means to choose, which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another. > And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact event that occurs after a decision is already made in the brain as a consequence of how it synthesizes different instincts and stimuli. Anytime you think to yourself "I'm going to do this", that decision was already made before you were even aware of it. > We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us. What does that mean? Do you have any evidence that, given the same circumstances, I could have chosen to do something differently? Or it is just a bunch of hypothetical navel-gazing? The Stanford encyclopedia link is a great read.
- narag 11y ago
  Maybe I misunderstand Yes you do. which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another "Implies". Hmmm... no. You're stubbornly insisting in the wrong mental frame that muds the waters, where the self is outside nature. That's a relic of religious thought. That vision has no support from science at all. Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact event That doesn't follow my question, just returned to your absurd premises and described what you think it happens based on them. What does that mean? We're not free in a vacuum means that we don't get to choose that we like food, sex or games. It means that we get to choose our behaviour to feed, have sex or play at different times or delay gratification to optimize satisfaction for our whishes. Actually we're also free, to a certain extent, to change ourselves, to refine our tastes, to train our body, to increase our will power observing how it works and controling our reactions predicting them. Do you have any evidence that, given the same circumstances, I could have chosen to do something differently? The same circumstances!!! Do you realize how absurd is what you're asking for? So freedom for you consist in the ability to contradict nature laws? No wonder you think it doesn't exist. The Stanford encyclopedia link is a great read. Fine, you're not going to get bored.