I counter that... — javra
Causality, Determination and such stuff. I argued that causation does not imply determinism. Add that to the incoherence of free will, and a preference for some form of anomalous monism...Can you elaborate? — javra
Of course the mind controls the mind.Are you asking if the mind controls the mind? — T Clark
Free will would entail that at the moment of choice we do not interact at all with our environment, including the choices we are presented with; [...] No choice I make is fundamentally mine and only mine for that would require that I receive no external influence, at all, no? — Daniel
I argued that causation does not imply determinism. — Banno
and a preference for some form of anomalous monism... — Banno
But there are other fish here to fry. — Banno
For each individual thought that one thinks, do they have options to choose from for what it will be prior to them thinking it? Where would they get these options from? They could only come from their own mind and thoughts, nowhere outside of themselves. If they don’t have options in the first place, then they cannot choose their thoughts by definition, as you’ve conceded. — Paul Michael
But you are not isolated from your environment. You cannot think freely without breathing oxygen and you cannot walk freely without having a ground to walk on. So why is that slip on a banana peel not your free act?
Either way, be it something you’ve previously chosen for yourself of something ingrained that is beyond your choosing, it does not nullify the logical possibility of free will in the choices you do make at any given juncture. — javra
Nor would the occurrence of free will necessitate that causal determinacy does not take place in the world - it would only necessitate that the world is not one of (complete) causal determinism. — javra
So ultimately all your choices are completely determined by factors that are out of your control or maybe are partially undetermined, which precludes your control too. — litewave
To the extent that your action is not determined by your (ultimately ingrained) goals, it is unintended and therefore unfree. — litewave
What I’m suggesting is that there isn’t a strict logical dichotomy between “completely determined (hence no free will)” and “completely undetermined (hence no intentionality)”; that there logically can very well occur something in-between, a “partly determined and hence partly undetermined” state of being that (partly) defines us as agents; and that our free will - if real - would necessarily be of the latter state of affairs: e.g., always partly determined by intents (among other possible factors), but never completely determined. — javra
Its a variant of compatibilism, though I take it you're not much enamored with the prospect of compatibilism. — javra
Is he not his ingrained predispositions? — NOS4A2
Then our actions are partly intended and therefore partly unfree, and also partly unintended and therefore partly unfree too. — litewave
I think compatibilist version of free will has some merit because it says that we have free will if we can do want we want. But it also admits that our actions may still be completely determined by factors that are ultimately out of our control (we do what we want but our wants are ultimately ingrained in us), which seems to conflict with what we usually mean by free will when we bother to talk about it: a free will that gives us ultimate control and moral responsibility that can override all circumstances. — litewave
For example, your intent is to learn about subject X; how does this intent of itself establish whether you choose a) to read a book about X or b) to see a documentary about X? — javra
Has anyone defined what a thought is and or its relationship to the brain? — Andrew4Handel
Several posters have taken exception to the abstract notion of freely choosing from among equal options : door A, B, or C. One objection is that we don't create the options we are faced with. That's true, but an un-forced situational choice is "free", if it is made with personal needs & preferences in mind. A convict may be given the preferential choice between life in prison (more options ahead) or immediate death (no more options).‘To choose’ implies that a set of options exists *from which one chooses*. — Paul Michael
Can we choose our thoughts? If not, does this rule out free will? — Paul Michael
As the first signals in life come through the brain certain initially random activations occur in the brain network directly correlated with what was received by the sense organs — punos
All the emergent properties and phenomena that come out of the brain's activity is called mind. — punos
Are you saying that sensory signals can preserve accurate and factual information about the world without interpretation? — Andrew4Handel
I don't know what information means — Andrew4Handel
For example if we see a foot print in the sand it usually tells us a human has walked by but we are using a non symbol as a symbol and interpreting it through consciousness. We are creating the notion of symbolism. — Andrew4Handel
It would beg the question of why we would be conscious if we could function as automatons. — Andrew4Handel
How are you defining an emergent property and its relationship to a substructure? — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.