Thank you for your response. S↪unenlightened o what is this thing called "Free Will"?
Seems to me that free will is the ability which everybody has to choose
how to serve their Master, whether ego or conscience. Still enslaved. — Piers
Do you know what Ego is? Do you know what Conscience is? — Piers
Sure. There are many ways that humanity has culturally come up with, to deal with our innate tendedncies in a more prosocial way. Religions provide some such tools, for example Christianity and Buddhism. I wish I was more knowledgeable about the roots of the more enlightened Nordic perspectives, but I haven't looked into it and am open to reading recommendations. — wonderer1
The extent to which people are educated, to have a more accurate perspective on human nature and how to deal skillfully with having a human nature, might change. I think this is a reasonable hope that Sapolsky and I share. — wonderer1
Right, and the data would require a book length treatment to lay out well. — wonderer1
If you don't have metaphysical freedom, the freedom to move an arm or choose to get up now and read a book or not or any other trivial thing, how can you have any other freedom? So no, I certainly do not buy the notion that metaphysical freedom is opposite any other freedom, in fact, it presupposes it, as do the laws in the societies we live in. — Manuel
What is the point in saying we don't have it, if all of us, including the most die-hard determinist lives as if they do have free will? — Manuel
Now, there's something that's been indirectly tackled, does your view on us not having free will, include, say, that you are forced to reply (or not) to this sentence here and does that include the ability to merely lift a finger as well? — Manuel
I'm unsure if Sapolsky would agree that there is felt (perhaps illusory) difference between lifting one's finger right now, and then have someone tap your finger such that it raises out of reflex. This is important. — Manuel
Even without metaphysical (free will) freedom, there is such a thing as freedom as determined by the laws of physics (the freedom to phase through a wall). But even if I grant that to you, which I am willing to, you make a point about freedom existing because people in Copenhagen have more freedom than in Palestine. I show that this does not depend on metaphysical freedom and so much so that it is completely relative (Palestinians have the freedom to bear arms, Danes don't). Your point about modern politics is therefore completely unrelated to the discussion. — Lionino
Because, as I said, the point or meaning of a proposition is separate from whether it has truth value or not. You are doing what some other users here do and basically saying "Ok but so what?/Who cares?" in reply to a discussion topic. That is not philosophy.
In any case, the OP is short and poorly formulated, it does not even fulfill the requirements to make a thread as put in the rules. — Lionino
I don't have strong objections to compatibilist notions of free will, as a matter of pragmatic necessity for beings as complex as we are. I just see a lot of value in awareness of what a compatibilist free will needs to be compatible with. — wonderer1
I'm sure Sapolsky would recognize the difference, and perhaps would go into detail about how the reflex finger raise was a result of a chain of events that didn't go beyond nerve paths between brain and spine. Whereas in the case where the finger raise resulted from someone having written a post on TPF, the causal path was vastly more complicated. It seems clear to me that Sapolsky understands that most of us model the world with our thinking playing a starring role in what we do. — wonderer1
Wait what? The freedom to phase through a wall? That's not freedom, it's a fact about wat physics says can or can't be done — Manuel
There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience.
Seems to me that free will is the ability which everybody has to choose
how to serve their Master, whether ego or conscience. — Piers
The will rules — Piers
I would appreciate a refutation of this position:
There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience. — Piers
One may be "enslaved" by a lot of --and much more important and powerful-- things besides ego (in the sense of personal drives) and conscience (in a moral sense). These may influence a person's decisions, actions and behavior in general. But this doesn't mean that they limit a person's freedom.There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience. — Piers
"There is no such thing as absolute freedom"
I know what you mean. But see, “obstacles” is something quite general and relative. E.g. on a road empty of other cars (no obstacles), you can drive freely as you wish. On a road with a few cars (i.e. few obstacles) your driving is restricted accordingly; there's some loss of freedom. And in a traffic jam, you are totally immobilized; there's a total loss of freedom."There is no such thing as absolute freedom"
- Alkis Piskas
That’s quite a claim, if the definition is “absence of obstacles”. — Punshhh
Thanks, Javi. — Alkis Piskas
To achieve a state in which he/she is free of obstacles. When they achieve this state they are entirely free of obstacles and no less free than they were before they began meditating. A state of samadhi is entirely free of obstacles.
So stillness is entirely free of obstacles and therefore entirely free. — Punshhh
You are a brave person. I normally avoid bringing up that kind of stuff in this medium! — Alkis Piskas
Although if you start a thread, unless you find some like minded people to respond, it often stalls as the majority of posters tend to lose interest. — Punshhh
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.