Free Will vs Natural Response

[Phaedrus]

Then, previously where I've stated something is a force, it should henceforth be considered a cause.

Yes, but we should still ask ourselves if that kind of cause is possible. I'm not sure it is. Here are a few reasons why:

1. You still haven't answered my question how a non-physical entity A can cause a physical effect B.

2. You said that a soul is a "non-physical subject that influences the physical world" and that a subject "is an entity that experiences the world". You also said that a "subject is that which thinks, feels, and otherwise experiences reality 'subjectively'".

By that I conclude that a soul (a subject) can not be a platonic entity. But you have stated that a soul is a kind of platonic entity. So, there is an impossible situation here. Platonic entitities are the kind of objects that in Popper's terminology belong to World 3, but what you describe belongs to his World 2. I am myself questioning the existence of a World 2, but that is another matter. The point is that your definition of soul is incoherent, because it confuses abstract platonic entities with subjects who can feel and think.

The word thought can have at least two meanings: a thought can refer to a process in the brain, or it can refer to a platonic entity in which case it is the same thing as a concept. Concepts (thoughts) are not located in space, and they are timeless. Thoughts in the first sense of the word are located space (in our brains), and they are temporal.

if you are intendeding to have this argument hold any sway against the possibility of a soul, then I suggest you read my previous responses to the possibility of temproal action without space that I believe you missed due to page increases.

The only ones I can find are these ones:

Time, as a metaphysical entity, is the transition of the matter of an affairs from one state to the next.

I mean that change can occur without motion. This is hard to explain, because you seem to reject the very notion of things that can change without motion a priori.

Perhaps God exists in a supernatural plane in which time exists without space; physical laws are descriptive, not perscriptive.

I agree with you that physical laws are descriptive, but I can't see that you explain how the notion of spaceless time is intelligible and that such a possibility is even conceivable.

Non-sequitor; the soul does not neccessarily function in a conscious manner, nor would it need to in order to be considered OUR will.

Agreed. We could define "soul" and "will" in that manner, but a soul or a will that operates without our awareness of it is not what we usually mean when we talk about these things, and to call that kind of will "free" is a misuse of language.

[MysticSonic]

I'm sorry, I missed this bit:

"And that we can not talk about, because every logically possible concept we may try to use to talk about it is necessarily understood only from a third person perspective."

It is quite possible to speak of the subjective in a objective terms; such and such is my preference, and by stating so I've accurately described a subjective perception; I'm not really seeing how it is impossible to describe such things.

"You still haven't answered my question how a non-physical entity A can cause a physical effect B. "

You're asking me to describe how a non-physical entity might PHYSICALLY influence the world? That's non-sensical. But, for the closest thing to it, take a look a the first-cause, a necessarily non-physical entity.

"Platonic entitities are the kind of objects that in Popper's terminology belong to World 3, but what you describe belongs to his World 2. I am myself questioning the existence of a World 2, but that is another matter. The point is that your definition of soul is incoherent, because it confuses abstract platonic entities with subjects who can feel and think. "

I don't see why that which we think and that which are actual ideals needs to be distinguished from one another; disregarding its practical use, Popper's classifications of ideas, thoughts, and phenomenon are not ontologically significant in that they exclude the possibility of one being identical with the other.

"Concepts (thoughts) are not located in space, and they are timeless."

Thoughts, feelings, and emotions, can be viewed as harbored by the soul, the entity that creates unity out of Hume's bundle of perceptions, and it is the overall state of the soul that changes, that goes from state to state outside of the bounds of space.

"I agree with you that physical laws are descriptive, but I can't see that you explain how the notion of spaceless time is intelligible and that such a possibility is even conceivable. "

Simply imagine what I classified above as the soul proceeding from state to state, and thus it becomes conceivable; at the very least, I am able to conceive it.

"We could define "soul" and "will" in that manner, but a soul or a will that operates without our awareness of it is not what we usually mean when we talk about these things, and to call that kind of will "free" is a misuse of language."

You're actually right about this point, but---as this topic is discussing logical possibilies and not that which is probable---we can take a non-realist stance and conjur up a world in which our thoughts, actions, and whatnot, are controlled totally by our conscious mind.

[tcaudilllg]

Whatever. OK, I'm done here. This is too off-base for me.

[Phaedrus]

It is quite possible to speak of the subjective in a objective terms; such and such is my preference, and by stating so I've accurately described a subjective perception; I'm not really seeing how it is impossible to describe such things.

It is not impossible. But what we describe in this way are, as you say yourself, perceptions, thoughts, feelings etc. All those things are objective in the sense that they can be studied by science. What can not be studied by science is what it is like for you to have those perceptions. And what I understand when you describe your perceptions or thoughts or feelings is not how it is like to perceive or think what you think from your perspective. I can only understand from an objective (intersubjective) perspective what it is like to have those perceptions or thoughts that you have. We can both have the same thoughts and the same feelings and the same perceptions, but you don't know what it is like for me to have my subjective experiences, I don't know what it is like for you to have your subjective experiences, and neither of us know what it is like to be a bat.

Thomas Nagel has described exactly this problem with the irreconcilability of the objective and the subjective perspectives in his famous essay "What is it Like to Be a Bat?".

You're asking me to describe how a non-physical entity might PHYSICALLY influence the world? That's non-sensical.

No, I didn't say that. I'm asking you to explain how a non-physical entity might cause a physical effect. How shall we understand this causality? We can imagine how a physical cause can have a physical effect, but if you can't give an example of a non-physical cause that can have a physical effect, I doubt if the idea is even intelligible.

But, for the closest thing to it, take a look a the first-cause, a necessarily non-physical entity.

Why should we believe that there is a first cause? That idea might also be unintelligible. If God is the first cause, it is legitimate to ask: But what caused God to exist? Who or what created God?

I don't see why that which we think and that which are actual ideals needs to be distinguished from one another

Well, it is absolutely necessary to do that, I think. Maybe I could come back to that, but right now it is late in the night and that could take some time. You could probably find the reasons for that in many elementary books on philosophy.

Thoughts, feelings, and emotions, can be viewed as harbored by the soul, the entity that creates unity out of Hume's bundle of perceptions, and it is the overall state of the soul that changes, that goes from state to state outside of the bounds of space.

How do you know that it goes outside the bounds of space?

Simply imagine what I classified above as the soul proceeding from state to state, and thus it becomes conceivable; at the very least, I am able to conceive it.

But you are a part of space-time. The soul proceeding from state to state takes time, but that time is a part of the physical.

we can take a non-realist stance and conjur up a world in which our thoughts, actions, and whatnot, are controlled totally by our conscious mind.

No, we can't. At least not as we please. To be able to do that we must first be able to mean something by "conscious mind" (or "soul") that it is logically possible to imagine. So far you haven't been able to do that, and I doubt that you ever will. As I have tried to explain all along, the concept soul is, just like the concept free will, inherently confused and logically incoherent.

[MysticSonic]

"Thomas Nagel has described exactly this problem with the irreconcilability of the objective and the subjective perspectives in his famous essay "What is it Like to Be a Bat?". "

However, I am fully capable of revealing my subjective experience, thus allowing the expression of the subjective in objective terms.

"No, I didn't say that. I'm asking you to explain how a non-physical entity might cause a physical effect. How shall we understand this causality?"

It might be able to cause it due to a contingent matter of whatever particular world said entity exists necessitating its casuality; how magic works in many pieces of fiction seems to be another fine example of such non-physical workings.

"Why should we believe that there is a first cause? That idea might also be unintelligible. If God is the first cause, it is legitimate to ask: But what caused God to exist? Who or what created God? "

See the cosmological argument.

For a rough exposition, it goes as thus:

1. That which begins has a cause.
2. From nothing, nothing comes.
3. The universe has a beginning.

From this we can conclude that:

a. The cause of the universe must not have a beginning
b. The cause must have been non-physical necessarily

For more indepth detail, just make a casual google search and you will undoubtedly uncover a plethora of information on it(though I suspect you're well acquainted with the argument.)

"How do you know that it goes outside the bounds of space? "

You don't know, you only know that it is possible.

"But you are a part of space-time. The soul proceeding from state to state takes time, but that time is a part of the physical. "

A metaphysical time that is in synchronicity with the physical time seems to be a possible explanation.

"To be able to do that we must first be able to mean something by "conscious mind" (or "soul") that it is logically possible to imagine."

It's really baffling to me how you're NOT able to imagine it; I'm so certain that I, myself, possess a mind, and that it is not just a physical state(which, itself, is self-refuting).

"As I have tried to explain all along, the concept soul is, just like the concept free will, inherently confused and logically incoherent."

And you're not doing a very good job of convincing me that it is.

[Phaedrus]

However, I am fully capable of revealing my subjective experience, thus allowing the expression of the subjective in objective terms.

Yes, in the sense I just described. But that is not the same thing. I have tried to explain the difference between an objective third-person perspective and a subjective first-person perspective in more than one post in this thread. I don't think I am capable of doing it any better than that. But one can always read Nagels article or books or what others have said in response to that.

It might be able to cause it due to a contingent matter of whatever particular world said entity exists necessitating its casuality;

What exactly does that mean? You are not explaining anything here.

how magic works in many pieces of fiction seems to be another fine example of such non-physical workings.

But magic is impossible. There is no genuine magic. This is an example of the technique of trying to explain something with the help of something else that is in even more need of explanation. To explain the origin of the world with reference to a creator - God - is another example of the same faulted reasoning.

For more indepth detail, just make a casual google search and you will undoubtedly uncover a plethora of information on it (though I suspect you're well acquainted with the argument.)

I am acquainted with the argument. Hopefully you are also aware of the fact that the argument is invalid.

How do you know that it goes outside the bounds of space?

You don't know, you only know that it is possible.

No, I don't know that it is possible. You haven't shown how it is possible, you just state it. But from the fact that you think that you can imagine something, it doesn't follow that you actually can do it. I doubt that you can in this case. What you do is playing with words.

A metaphysical time that is in synchronicity with the physical time seems to be a possible explanation.

Nonsense again. This is just a play with words. What is a metaphysical time? Define it or stop using such nonsensical expressions. In exactly which sense does metaphysical time differ from time?

It's really baffling to me how you're NOT able to imagine it; I'm so certain that I, myself, possess a mind, and that it is not just a physical state(which, itself, is self-refuting).

You are fooling yourself. You are mislead into incorrect thinking by a picture. I don't doubt that you have experiences, though, and you have thoughts and feelings. But that is not the same thing as having a soul. I also have a mind, but my mind is not a soul. And neither is yours.

As I have tried to explain all along, the concept soul is, just like the concept free will, inherently confused and logically incoherent.

And you're not doing a very good job of convincing me that it is.

That could be one my weaknesses as a dominant type. Or it could illustrate the difficulties that INTps and INTjs have in understanding each other - a phenomenon that I have been interested in for years now. I think it is really fascinating, but also extremely frustrating, that those two types can think about the same problems and still not understand each others point of view.

If my hypothesis is right, we find the INTj way of thinking in the philosophical tradition emanating from the sophists, going through Hegel to the continental philosophers and the postmodernists. The INTp way of thinking emanates from Socrates, and goes through the empiricists to the analytical philosophy and the modernists.

[MysticSonic]

"I am acquainted with the argument. Hopefully you are also aware of the fact that the argument is invalid. "

That'll be really interesting, as I've spent a few years trying to refute it completely and have only devalued its significance to proving the existence of the supernatural.

"You are fooling yourself. You are mislead into incorrect thinking by a picture. I don't doubt that you have experiences, though, and you have thoughts and feelings. But that is not the same thing as having a soul. I also have a mind, but my mind is not a soul. And neither is yours. "

I really don't get how the mind can be something physical. Explain.

"If my hypothesis is right, we find the INTj way of thinking in the philosophical tradition emanating from the sophists, going through Hegel to the continental philosophers and the postmodernists."

Except, well, I'm not a post-modernist, though I am influenced by them.

"The INTp way of thinking emanates from Socrates, and goes through the empiricists to the analytical philosophy and the modernists."

Maybe.

[Phaedrus]

I really don't get how the mind can be something physical. Explain.

We don't know enough of this yet. But we know something about the brain and how the parts of it function. Our thoughts change by the influence of chemical substances, our moods are also dependent on such things. Feelings of apathy, lack of initiative, and for example schizophrenia, are linked to low levels of dopamine, whereas ADHD behaviour, impulsiveness, and such things, are due to high levels of dopamine. How shall we that, or senility, if the mind is not part of the physical world?

I really don't get how the mind can not be something physical, when there is so much evidence suggesting just that. Our level of intelligence, our personality type, our way of thinking - all these things seem to be caused by, among other physical things, the structure of our brains.

Except, well, I'm not a post-modernist, though I am influenced by them.

Interesting. How are you influenced by them? There was a time when I was also influenced by them, until I finally got off their hook.

[Mariano Rajoy]

We don't know enough of this yet. But we know something about the brain and how the parts of it function. Our thoughts change by the influence of chemical substances, our moods are also dependent on such things. Feelings of apathy, lack of initiative, and for example schizophrenia, are linked to low levels of dopamine, whereas ADHD behaviour, impulsiveness, and such things, are due to high levels of dopamine. How shall we that, or senility, if the mind is not part of the physical world?

I really don't get how the mind can not be something physical, when there is so much evidence suggesting just that. Our level of intelligence, our personality type, our way of thinking - all these things seem to be caused by, among other physical things, the structure of our brains.

the relationship between mind and matter is much more subtle. the leap from matter to mind is synonymous to the leap from inorganic to organic. when we look closely at it, the divisions disappear, and we see that reality is actually a unified whole.

[Raver]

Define "free will" please. Also, please define "natural response." I think, and you may believe otherwise, that a clear definition of the terms in question are required for an effective answer to your questions, or to point out the relative irrelevance of your questions. I'm not meaning to insult, but I do mean to be blunt and to the point, which may be perceived as insulting--

Keep in mind this is subjective, free will is the ability for an individual to determine what would happen in the present and the future without interference or predisposition. Natural response is basically your brain's mechanism that responds a certain way when spurred by the environment or changes in the body. For example, empirically speaking a natural response is your brain relaying a message to you that suddenly makes you hungry, since you haven't ingested food in a considerable period of time. You did not choose to hungry, therefore it was a natural response and not free will. Picture a robot programmed to do a 90 degree turn when it hits a wall, that is nautral response. It may not be the most accurate definitions, but I hope it's enough.

[Phaedrus]

Keep in mind this is subjective, free will is the ability for an individual to determine what would happen in the present and the future without interference or predisposition.

From that definition it follows that we don't have free will. The crucial word here is predisposition. If you leave that word out of the definition, we have free will, at least in many situations. But we are always predisposed in some way or another.

Natural response is basically your brain's mechanism that responds a certain way when spurred by the environment or changes in the body.

That is a much more accurate description of what actually happens when we choose and act.

If we accept the above definitions of free will and natural disposition, the conclusion seems inevitable: neither we, nor the programmed robot or the computer, have free will.

If we define free will in just a slightly different way, we could say that we actually have free will - but in that case some of the most advanced computers can have that too, and they probably will in a near future. At least that is a definite possibility in principle.

[Raver]

Keep in mind this is subjective, free will is the ability for an individual to determine what would happen in the present and the future without interference or predisposition.

From that definition it follows that we don't have free will. The crucial word here is predisposition. If you leave that word out of the definition, we have free will, at least in many situations. But we are always predisposed in some way or another.

I have the belief that free will is inhibited when you are predisposed to perform an action as a result of negative emotions. However, if you are predisposed to respond a certain way because it is inconceivable for you to perform differently then the line must be drawn. Therfore, in that instance that should not be categorized as a nautral predisposition because there is the possibility that the belief system can possibly be interpreted as free will.

Natural response is basically your brain's mechanism that responds a certain way when spurred by the environment or changes in the body.

That is a much more accurate description of what actually happens when we choose and act.

If we accept the above definitions of free will and natural disposition, the conclusion seems inevitable: neither we, nor the programmed robot or the computer, have free will.

If we define free will in just a slightly different way, we could say that we actually have free will - but in that case some of the most advanced computers can have that too, and they probably will in a near future. At least that is a definite possibility in principle.

I agree, because the definition between free will and natural response all is dependent on where the line is drawn. I have previously drawn the line in an obscure manner where free will is inconceivable. Like I have stated above is where I draw the new line.

[Trevor]

Last night, while I was lying in my bed and thinking about determinism, free will, time as an illusion and Phaedrus something strange had happened. Like some taunting voice or something appeared saying "there is no time?? What a nonsense". I really felt the stupidity of Phaedrus' views. Semi-revelation or something. Semi because I still don't know what's the reasoning for such a claim. However, the world now looks a whole lot more brighter. I felt the pressure in my head and almost passed away due to awesomeness of the voice and due to awesomeness of it's claim. Then I got scared a little bit but all in vain. No seizures or madness had occured. Thence I fell asleep.

[Raver]

Bump

Let's give this thread a rebirth.

[Absurd]

There is no free will.