3 ms·

The "qualia" is a vague enough concept to be used as an argument ad ignorantiam. "Free will" is a totally irrelevant concept that's presented as a fundamental p

by narag 8y ago

The "qualia" is a vague enough concept to be used as an argument ad ignorantiam. "Free will" is a totally irrelevant concept that's presented as a fundamental problem. And no, it's not that's tainted by religion, it's that it makes no sense at all without religious thinking. Dualism is the belief that there is a material body and a inmaterial soul that controls the body. As the knowledge of mind expanded, the soul retreated. That's just how things happened historically, but the logic is to ditch the soul concept altogether, not reducing it to an entelechy. The problem with doing the later is you end up inventing fake problems like "free will". Will is not free in a vacuum. People are born with things that we like and some other things that we dislike, not the same for every person. Then family, society and circumstances, including sheer luck, shape our wills to a point. There is also the possibility of changing our own likes, acquiring what we consider desirable tastes. We're not free to completely bootstrap ourselves. But that is not the same at saying we've not free will at all. Determinism is alike to saying that it's impossible that heavier than air machines can fly. You take a general concept that seems obvious, ignore all intermediate steps and reach an unwarranted conclusion. The intermediate steps in this case is the fact that our mind is in a material world, generated by a material brain and that our wills, our memories and everything else is part of the material world also. So saying that material laws prevent us from being free is absurd. We are made of matter, we are not "trapped in matter", that's a relic.

ci5er 8y ago
Not to push, (but I'm gonna push...) That's a lot of declarative statements! And yet I am left uninformed as to whether you are saying that Free-Will (the 'non-problem') exists? Or not? Or that the question itself is meaningless? (I'm guessing the last?)
- narag 8y ago
  If you need to guess, I'm afraid there weren't enough declarative statements :) Of course it's meaningless. We make decisions all the time, you can only say that free will doesn't exist if you define free will in a way that's impossible to exist, ignoring the intuitive, inmediate reality of freedom. Edit: in other words, what's a definition of free will that's possible to exist? If there's none, we're talking about nothing, aren't we? If there's one, that would be useful. Why bother with the useless ones? What I'm trying to say is there are a number of discussions that match the same pattern: We know very little about a something but still try to make general rules about it. We don't know in enoug detail how the brain works but there are a number of experts that run to assert that computers will never think because they're different. How do they know? Do they know every kind of computer that's not invented yet?
hliyan 8y ago
It sounds like you've been vigorously trained in attacking a specific version of this inquiry: consciousness in the religious/spiritual sense, which is not what we're talking about here. No one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all. Your borderline condescending tone doesn't help matters either.
- narag 8y ago
  No one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all. You are implying that I said that somebody here is suggesting a soul, aren't you? If you are, you're wrong. I suggested that historical reasons (people believing in a soul time ago) caused the debate. Now please explain to me how you think new physics can alter the approach to this debate. My tone is just assertive: that's what I believe and I make no apologies for it. If you dislike what I say, please be more specifical about what exactly troubles you instead of making a vague criticism in my general direction. Edit: oh, and one more thing. Your last comment qualifies my argumentation but you don't answer a single point of what I wrote.

by narag 8y ago

ci5er 8y ago

Not to push, (but I'm gonna push...) That's a lot of declarative statements! And yet I am left uninformed as to whether you are saying that Free-Will (the 'non-problem') exists? Or not? Or that the question itself is meaningless? (I'm guessing the last?)

narag 8y ago
If you need to guess, I'm afraid there weren't enough declarative statements :) Of course it's meaningless. We make decisions all the time, you can only say that free will doesn't exist if you define free will in a way that's impossible to exist, ignoring the intuitive, inmediate reality of freedom. Edit: in other words, what's a definition of free will that's possible to exist? If there's none, we're talking about nothing, aren't we? If there's one, that would be useful. Why bother with the useless ones? What I'm trying to say is there are a number of discussions that match the same pattern: We know very little about a something but still try to make general rules about it. We don't know in enoug detail how the brain works but there are a number of experts that run to assert that computers will never think because they're different. How do they know? Do they know every kind of computer that's not invented yet?

hliyan 8y ago

It sounds like you've been vigorously trained in attacking a specific version of this inquiry: consciousness in the religious/spiritual sense, which is not what we're talking about here. No one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all. Your borderline condescending tone doesn't help matters either.

narag 8y ago
No one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all. You are implying that I said that somebody here is suggesting a soul, aren't you? If you are, you're wrong. I suggested that historical reasons (people believing in a soul time ago) caused the debate. Now please explain to me how you think new physics can alter the approach to this debate. My tone is just assertive: that's what I believe and I make no apologies for it. If you dislike what I say, please be more specifical about what exactly troubles you instead of making a vague criticism in my general direction. Edit: oh, and one more thing. Your last comment qualifies my argumentation but you don't answer a single point of what I wrote.