Philosophers? Here for debate or discussion

[TrueEpic08]

i completely understand what youre saying.

there are many aspects to free wil--one example of which is me choosing to eat cereal for breakfast this morning, or to take a shower in the morning instead of at night, or to work on my business plan instead of watching a movie. we literally make a thousand of these decisions everyday, although granted these independent decisions co-exist in a world of infinite probability when it comes to the causes and effects from other peoples choices.

and of course the earth, her seasons, and her cycles also play a role in which events take place.

but there is also another more primal aspect of free will. the aspect that asks the question of "why." so why did i eat that cereal? because it's a habit? because i was hungry?

well why was i hungry? because i think im hungry? because my body is craving energy? because my body is craving nutrients?

well why does my body crave nutrients? as a part of a survival mechanism to make sure i feed my physical vessel energy? because if i dont have that mechanism in place it would be like driving a car with no gas gauge and i might deplete my physical vessel of life because i forgot to feed it nutrients?

and these layers can continue to go deeper and deeper.

then there are social layers we could peel back, that deal with social conditionings and our programming around food.

so im saying all that to say, it's an interesting discussion on many levels and we can discuss any one of them or all of them, as they are all ultimately related

Just to give an answer on the question of free will...

I'm of a mixed mind regarding it. I don't deal with biological limits, mostly because it's too complex. But to discuss free will, let's take the example of scientifist bias (the model being the scientific method) that orders most of our thought.

I don't believe in natural ordering structures, rather I believe that all structures are ideological, man-made structures that order our thought and construct our very being. But in that same way, I don't think of that as a rigid puppeteering as much as a bounding or discourse.

So, taking our example of the scientific method, which is really just a crystallization of Plato's method of empirical, observational and analytic philosophical reasoning which supplanted that which could be called a Hellenistic form of ancient Phenomenology, in which knowledge was not discerned through analysis, but revealed through experience (see Heidegger, if you can get past the fact that he is a fukking Nazi,which is hard even for those who incorporate his thought into theirs deeply, such as Jacques Derrida), you can absolutely have free thought within this, but the fact that you do have free thought blinds you to the dominant that orders it to some extent. It isn't a direct method of binding free will, but rather a culturally-learned ideology that dominates the sphere of reference in which we as culturally and societally embedded humans HAVE to live. Everything related to the code and signifier of "knowledge", for example, is ordered by the structure of the scientific method even if it is not directly in anyway affected by it. Investigative journalists, exposes, sabermetrics, statistics, everything even REMOTELY related to the code "knowledge" is related to that model.

So you can have free will in that way, without it being completely total. It's just bounded by things far beyond the individual level of free will.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I just feel that if it is bounded, it isnt truly free. And it's a shame about Heidegger...he has a lot of great ideas but Nazism?

I can't read the words of a Nazi and accept any of that, so I wrote him off. It's a damn shame too because normally Im not one to completely discard someone because of one viewpoint, but Nazism is the exception.

 

[WhiteDawg3000]

subs

 

[Bitchesluhbsmileyfaces]

Subs, I'm writing about determinism right now (in a roundabout way).

My thought are too long-winded to write out now but I def intend to return.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I just feel that if it is bounded, it isnt truly free. And it's a shame about Heidegger...he has a lot of great ideas but Nazism?

I can't read the words of a Nazi and accept any of that, so I wrote him off. It's a damn shame too because normally Im not one to completely discard someone because of one viewpoint, but Nazism is the exception.

No free will supporters have addressed this.

 

[Bitchesluhbsmileyfaces]

No free will supporters have addressed this.

Bounded by (probabilistic) laws of physics?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Bounded by (probabilistic) laws of physics?

bounded by anything...any type of limit negates the premise of "free" will

 

[OsO]

I just feel that if it is bounded, it isnt truly free.

i can understand your viewpoint.

but let me ask you this, what exactly do you feel free will is bounded by?

btw i also believe that free will can be limited in certain circumstances, but im interested to hear what you think

 

[The Real]

another spinoza fan????? i thought i was the only one

Nah, we in here.

Btw, Spinoza's answer to the free will question has been covered earlier in this thread and explained perfectly- "free will" is an illusion stemming from our ignorance of the full array of causes for our actions. Even if one doesn't believe the thesis, the supporting argument is a fact. We simply can't know the full extent of causes for any of our supposedly free actions.

Science is also going further and further towards demonstrating that consciousness itself is somewhat "reactive," insofar as it consists of responses to stimuli that our bodies register in ways that our mental processes aren't comprehensive enough to experience (just imagine if we were consciously aware of every single cellular process in our bodies right now,) which I am guessing will help confirm Spinoza's argument.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

i can understand your viewpoint.

but let me ask you this, what exactly do you feel free will is bounded by?

btw i also believe that free will can be limited in certain circumstances, but im interested to hear what you think

It is bounded by many things.

One thing is the subconscious/unconscious mind. Assuming that it exists, the subconscious mind affects decision making on a level so remote that it is not often recognized or acknowledged. If there is a part of your own mind that limits your direct control over decision making, then it must be considered a limit to free will.

Another thing pertains to the society vs genetics debate. Both limit free will. One side suggests that you were born and destined to be this way based on coding, while the other suggests that you were shaped by your environment. Neither of these seem to suggest that the individual has the opportunity to create themselves through a series of decisions made solely by them.

The third (or fourth thing, depending on how you look at it), in my opinion, comes cosmically. I believe in a mixture of theory of evolution and intelligent design..both undermine free will and hint towards determinism because it suggests that there is some sort of programming behind it all that allows the universe to continue to run. Whether it's God's logic, or the natural order of things, there seems to be a series of patterns that, when analyzed, seems to indicate that there is minimal power of the individual.

Any of these things can serve to limit free will, and it only takes one of them for it to matter.

My question for those that think free will exists...how do you believe the universe (and everything began)?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Nah, we in here.

Btw, Spinoza's answer to the free will question has been covered earlier in this thread and explained perfectly- "free will" is an illusion stemming from our ignorance of the full array of causes for our actions. Even if one doesn't believe the thesis, the supporting argument is a fact. We simply can't know the full extent of causes for any of our supposedly free actions.

Science is also going further and further towards demonstrating that consciousness itself is somewhat "reactive," insofar as it consists of responses to stimuli that our bodies register in ways that our mental processes aren't comprehensive enough to experience (just imagine if we were consciously aware of every single cellular process in our bodies right now,) which I am guessing will help confirm Spinoza's argument.

Thank you for articulating this for the masses. Spinoza was on point. Legendary first post, pos rep.

 

[OsO]

It is bounded by many things.

One thing is the subconscious/unconscious mind. Assuming that it exists, the subconscious mind affects decision making on a level so remote that it is not often recognized or acknowledged. If there is a part of your own mind that limits your direct control over decision making, then it must be considered a limit to free will.

Another thing pertains to the society vs genetics debate. Both limit free will. One side suggests that you were born and destined to be this way based on coding, while the other suggests that you were shaped by your environment. Neither of these seem to suggest that the individual has the opportunity to create themselves through a series of decisions made solely by them.

The third (or fourth thing, depending on how you look at it), in my opinion, comes cosmically. I believe in a mixture of theory of evolution and intelligent design..both undermine free will and hint towards determinism because it suggests that there is some sort of programming behind it all that allows the universe to continue to run. Whether it's God's logic, or the natural order of things, there seems to be a series of patterns that, when analyzed, seems to indicate that there is minimal power of the individual.

Any of these things can serve to limit free will, and it only takes one of them for it to matter.

My question for those that think free will exists...how do you believe the universe (and everything began)?

very good post. and i actually agree.

but i also believe our choices give us a large amount of control over our lives, despite our choices being somewhat "bounded" by external forces.

i think about my own life... and how choices, both big and small, have led me to my current position in life.

so one may disagree with the term "free" will, and i can actually understand that logic.

but i also see that on another level we are totally cognizant of the choices we make, and most of the time when we are honest with ourselves we can even see the motivations behind the choices we make... and therefore we are largely in control of our lives.

our choices shape our lives, and i dont see any way around that.

 

[TrueEpic08]

very good post. and i actually agree.

but i also believe our choices give us a large amount of control over our lives, despite our choices being somewhat "bounded" by external forces.

i think about my own life... and how choices, both big and small, have led me to my current position in life.

so one may disagree with the term "free" will, and i can actually understand that logic.

but i also see that on another level we are totally cognizant of the choices we make, and most of the time when we are honest with ourselves we can even see the motivations behind the choices we make... and therefore we are largely in control of our lives.

our choices shape our lives, and i dont see any way around that.

This and the Spinoza articulation is basically a simplified version of where I stand on the free will question, except for the fact that I believe that we CAN know and discover all of the structures that bound and determine (in the boundaries for discourse sence, not the absolutely restrictive sense) discourse and thought, since they are all man made concepts through which we view and comprehend the world.

Thanks for that.

 

[usopp]

I believe free will is an illusion. It is my belief that we do not posses the mental capacity to truly understand the relation between Cause and Effect down to the smallest unit of measurement. Everything we perceive and every action we take is merely the effect of a previous action so complex that we determine it it simply free will. This being said I do believe in an impersonal god.... *lights up another bowl*

the subconscious mind isn't clouded by personal bias. people don't have to consciously understand everything about a subject or situation when taking action. a person could walk down the street to the end of the block and turn either left or right if they wanted to. or they could just say fudge it and stay home.
its not the age/time or situation that may determine a person's decisions and actions.

 

[True Blue Moon]

YOUR VERY FIRST PREMISE IS AN UNFOUNDED ASSERTION, BROTHER!