INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#41 Post by Compassionist » November 27th, 2013, 5:06 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

animist wrote:well, OK, you are defining "compulsion" in terms of one human forcing another human to act in a certain way, while by "constraint" you mean your dear old "prisoner of causality" thing; I prefer the word "determinant" to "constraint". But anyway, at least you acknowledge there are degree of unfreedom, yes? We are all constrained, but only some of us are compelled?
Compulsion doesn't have to be one human compelling another human. For example, I need to pee. I am not yet compelled to pee but given enough time I will be compelled to pee. We are all brought into existence without our consent. Then this existence is ended without our consent. Birth and death are the biggest compulsions. There are other compulsions e.g. having to breathe, drink, eat, sleep, pee and poo. All of us are compelled to do these things. People with obsessive compulsive disorders experience compulsions such as having to wash hands lots of times. Most people don't experience this compulsion. What about our personalities and temperaments? I don't think these are freely chosen. As far as I can tell, our personalities and temperaments are products of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. These are all determinants of causality which cause us to be constrained in the ways we are constrained. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of pigeon I wouldn't need to pee. I better go pee before I am compelled to wet my jeans! :hilarity:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#42 Post by animist » December 20th, 2013, 11:06 am

I had almost given up on this topic, and don't think that you, Compo, ever really answered my question of whether the local paedophile teacher I mentioned (who BTW has now been imprisoned) was responsible for his actions. Anyway, I notice that Philip Pullman, in attempting to say what he as a humanist means by life having meaning, starts by saying "I am responsible"; do you disagree with him on this?

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#43 Post by Compassionist » December 20th, 2013, 4:31 pm

animist wrote:I had almost given up on this topic, and don't think that you, Compo, ever really answered my question of whether the local paedophile teacher I mentioned (who BTW has now been imprisoned) was responsible for his actions. Anyway, I notice that Philip Pullman, in attempting to say what he as a humanist means by life having meaning, starts by saying "I am responsible"; do you disagree with him on this?
The first and most important point is that it doesn't matter at all whether or not I am convinced that humans are culpable. The legal system works on the assumption that people have free will and are culpable for crimes.

In any given place and time, humans and other sentient organisms make choices according to their unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Is it really possible for a human or another sentient organism to make different choices given identical genes, environments, nutrients and experiences? I don't see any mechanism that would allow that. Do you see any free will giving mechanism? If so, please explain this mechanism to me. I really want to know and understand.

I recently did an exam in which I scored 90%. I did my absolute best yet I failed to get 100%. Could I have made different choices and gotten 100% in that exam? Perhaps better preparation would have led to a score of 100% but given identical variables would causality have allowed a better preparation? I think not. Am I responsible? Am I culpable? Am I due any credit or blame? How would I know for sure? Is that paedophile teacher culpable? Only if different choices could be made despite identical variables. We don't have a free will which is independent of the variables of causality. Aren't we all prisoners of causality? Without consent we are thrust into existence and suffer all kinds of pains and are snuffed out. What's free about our existence?

I can't and don't agree with Pullman because I don't see how I or another sentient organism could have made different choices given identical variables. If I truly had free will, I would have prevented all suffering and injustice a long time ago because that is what I crave to do every awake moment.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#44 Post by animist » December 23rd, 2013, 9:03 am

Compassionist wrote: In any given place and time, humans and other sentient organisms make choices according to their unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Is it really possible for a human or another sentient organism to make different choices given identical genes, environments, nutrients and experiences? I don't see any mechanism that would allow that. Do you see any free will giving mechanism? If so, please explain this mechanism to me. I really want to know and understand.
there is no mechanism since there is no "thing" called free will - you still fail to comprehend that I am a determinist
Compassionist wrote: We don't have a free will which is independent of the variables of causality. Aren't we all prisoners of causality? Without consent we are thrust into existence and suffer all kinds of pains and are snuffed out. What's free about our existence?
now here I do agree with you and it bothers me a lot. We have no choice but to have been born with a certain personality, and that is why the judgmental religionists are so disgusting
Compassionist wrote: I can't and don't agree with Pullman because I don't see how I or another sentient organism could have made different choices given identical variables. If I truly had free will, I would have prevented all suffering and injustice a long time ago because that is what I crave to do every awake moment.
sorry, again here you confuse power and freedom of choice. Are you really sure that you never blame yourself or anyone else for anything?

We are never going to agree because I make a distinction, based on my own consciousness, between interior and exterior which you seem not to recognise. I know that my freedom to get out of my own cage is very limited, but I also know that on particular occasions I can by reflection stop myself from doing something which I might want to do but which might, say, be hurtful to someone else - largely because I know that I have often failed to stop myself in the past. This local paedophile I have mentioned, whose name is John Golding, cannot be blamed for his paedophile urges any more than I can be blamed for the urges which I have, but (without knowing him) I guess that he knew of his own sexual personality, that he did have the power to deny himself the pleasure of what came naturally to him, and that on the occasion for which he was jailed he decided not to use this power

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#45 Post by Compassionist » December 24th, 2013, 11:20 am

animist wrote:
Compassionist wrote: In any given place and time, humans and other sentient organisms make choices according to their unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Is it really possible for a human or another sentient organism to make different choices given identical genes, environments, nutrients and experiences? I don't see any mechanism that would allow that. Do you see any free will giving mechanism? If so, please explain this mechanism to me. I really want to know and understand.
there is no mechanism since there is no "thing" called free will - you still fail to comprehend that I am a determinist
If you are a determinist, doesn't that mean you accept that all choices arise inevitably according to variables? There is no such thing as a 'free' choice which is 'free' from the determining variables.
animist wrote:
Compassionist wrote: We don't have a free will which is independent of the variables of causality. Aren't we all prisoners of causality? Without consent we are thrust into existence and suffer all kinds of pains and are snuffed out. What's free about our existence?
now here I do agree with you and it bothers me a lot. We have no choice but to have been born with a certain personality, and that is why the judgmental religionists are so disgusting
The religious oppression is even worse. Please consider the fact that both Christianity and Islam teaches that God or Allah predetermined all events - the condemnation of trillions of sentient organisms to suffering before death and then eternal torment in hell for non-believers in God or Allah is all the more evil given that our choices were predetermined by God or Allah. Of course, there is no evidence to support the claims.
animist wrote:
Compassionist wrote: I can't and don't agree with Pullman because I don't see how I or another sentient organism could have made different choices given identical variables. If I truly had free will, I would have prevented all suffering and injustice a long time ago because that is what I crave to do every awake moment.
sorry, again here you confuse power and freedom of choice. Are you really sure that you never blame yourself or anyone else for anything?
If humans and other sentient organisms can't make a different choice (how could they, given identical variables?) then are they truly culpable? Can I really blame Hitler for being Hitler? Would I or a fly or you or a cow or a bacteria not have been Hitler if I or you or they had his genes, environments, nutrients and experiences? How can we judge or blame anyone when identical variables produce identical outcomes? Many times, I have wished that I and others had made different choices but how could anyone have made different choices given identical variables? What mechanism would permit such differing choices? You said that I am confusing power and freedom of choice. What freedom of choice do we have? Do you really think that I chose not to become Albert Einstein or Marie Curie or Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin? No, I don't have any freedom of choice. I am not free from the variables which produce each and every choice.
animist wrote: We are never going to agree because I make a distinction, based on my own consciousness, between interior and exterior which you seem not to recognise. I know that my freedom to get out of my own cage is very limited, but I also know that on particular occasions I can by reflection stop myself from doing something which I might want to do but which might, say, be hurtful to someone else - largely because I know that I have often failed to stop myself in the past. This local paedophile I have mentioned, whose name is John Golding, cannot be blamed for his paedophile urges any more than I can be blamed for the urges which I have, but (without knowing him) I guess that he knew of his own sexual personality, that he did have the power to deny himself the pleasure of what came naturally to him, and that on the occasion for which he was jailed he decided not to use this power
As I have explained many times, our choices arise out of the interaction of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. When I was a child, I had put my finger on a candle flame. It was sore and I withdrew my finger. Was that a free choice? No, it was not. If I had felt no pain, I would not have withdrawn my finger. Also, the experience taught me that I shouldn't touch a flame because it causes pain and damages my cells. There are people with leprosy who can't feel pain and end up burning their fingers while cooking, etc. Your example of failing to refrain from hurting people in the past and getting better at refraining yourself from doing so again also illustrates how choices arise out of variables. Your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine your awareness, values and abilities which in turn determine your choices. You are assuming that John Golding could have refrained from his paedophilic actions at the time and place the event occurred. That's like assuming that I could have refrained from touching the candle flame when I was a child. That's also like assuming that you could have refrained from saying or doing hurtful things to others at the time and place you did them. The crux of my argument is that we are not free from the determining variables which lead to our choices. All choices occur inevitably according to causality. Causality rules.

You made a distinction between interior and exterior - what do you mean by that? By interior do you mean the subjective experience of what it is like to be you? By exterior do you mean what you look like to others?

You said that we are never going to agree. If we are both looking for the truth and are willing to accept what is true and reject what is false then we are both going to agree. As far as I can tell, it is a demonstrable truth that all our choices arise according to the variables of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Given identical variables, identical choices will occur. How can we make free choices when we are never free from the determining variables which determines our choices?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#46 Post by animist » January 31st, 2014, 10:35 pm

Compassionist wrote: If you are a determinist, doesn't that mean you accept that all choices arise inevitably according to variables? There is no such thing as a 'free' choice which is 'free' from the determining variables.
true, but I don't see that rules out freedom in my sense - which is basically a freedom to decide what I want to do which I do have at present and which someone under the influence of an abusive background, drugs, brainwashing, religious or political manipulation and indoctrination etc etc does not have
Compassionist wrote: Can I really blame Hitler for being Hitler? Would I or a fly or you or a cow or a bacteria not have been Hitler if I or you or they had his genes, environments, nutrients and experiences? How can we judge or blame anyone when identical variables produce identical outcomes? Many times, I have wished that I and others had made different choices but how could anyone have made different choices given identical variables? What mechanism would permit such differing choices? You said that I am confusing power and freedom of choice. What freedom of choice do we have? Do you really think that I chose not to become Albert Einstein or Marie Curie or Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin? No, I don't have any freedom of choice. I am not free from the variables which produce each and every choice.
the variables produce each choice, yes, but they work through our free will to an extent. Of course on e cannot choose to be a different person or even to have a different personality (except that some choices could in principle lead to an altered personality) but within limits one can make decisions after pondering the alternatives. Culpability is a legal concept, but most people in fact accept that the concept is a valid for reasons I have given already: that otherwise we would have no distinction between deserving and non-deserving social sanctions like penalties, which in turn would justify treating people as robots without rights
Compassionist wrote:When I was a child, I had put my finger on a candle flame. It was sore and I withdrew my finger. Was that a free choice? No, it was not. If I had felt no pain, I would not have withdrawn my finger. Also, the experience taught me that I shouldn't touch a flame because it causes pain and damages my cells. There are people with leprosy who can't feel pain and end up burning their fingers while cooking, etc. Your example of failing to refrain from hurting people in the past and getting better at refraining yourself from doing so again also illustrates how choices arise out of variables. Your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine your awareness, values and abilities which in turn determine your choices. You are assuming that John Golding could have refrained from his paedophilic actions at the time and place the event occurred. That's like assuming that I could have refrained from touching the candle flame when I was a child. That's also like assuming that you could have refrained from saying or doing hurtful things to others at the time and place you did them. The crux of my argument is that we are not free from the determining variables which lead to our choices. All choices occur inevitably according to causality. Causality rules.
I am confused by your finger burning example, and in fact it seems to illustrate what I am trying to say. As far as WITHDRAWING your finger, then yes, you had no choice, but the decision to touch the flame was to an extent (limited by the fact that you were a child) a free decision.
Compassionist wrote: You made a distinction between interior and exterior - what do you mean by that? By interior do you mean the subjective experience of what it is like to be you? By exterior do you mean what you look like to others? You said that we are never going to agree. If we are both looking for the truth and are willing to accept what is true and reject what is false then we are both going to agree.
by interior I mean the subjective experience, yes, but by external I mean the objective physical causality that you keep mentioning. I feel you are a bit naïve to think that sincere searches for truth must lead to agreement; your wife is I imagine as sincere as you in searching for truth but the differences between her and your ideas are enormous and maybe unbridgeable.

You might find this article interesting re the status of consciousness, which the author (and I) feel is subjective but not illusory; consciousness and free will are not the same topic, but they share the fact that they are threatened by a reductive take on the mind-body problem which identifies the mind with the brain. ISTM that if consciousness is an illusion, then free will must be, since the free will concept involves the notion of a conscious and reflecting human being:

http://www.pdcnet.org/philnow/content/p ... _0025_0025

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#47 Post by Compassionist » February 1st, 2014, 1:22 pm

I have nothing new to add to what I have already said about lacking free will. I don't require anyone to accept what I have said. I am convinced that choices occur according to determining variables and choices are never free from causality. When identical variables produce identical outcomes how can we be free? If you alter someone's genes (through gene therapy or pre-conception genetic engineering), environments (through migration), nutrients (through starvation or feeding) and experiences (helpful or harmful) you alter their choices. I never said that we don't make choices. We make choices all the time we are alive but these choices occur entirely according to determining variables. We choose according to our awareness, values and abilities. Our awareness, values and abilities are the product of our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. There is no undeterministic free will. There is only deterministic constrained will.

My wife is not interested in ascertaining truth by examining the evidence. She believes that the Bible is the Word of God and is true because it is the Word of God. How can it be true when it contradicts itself? She says that there are no contradictions in the Bible but ignores http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html She is not alone. Billions of people believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and free from all errors and contradictions. When I was a Christian I used to believe it was the Word of God. However, I had huge cognitive dissonace from various issues with the Bible e.g. cruelty of God, errors and contradictions in the Bible, etc.

Thank you for the article about consciousness. I am conscious - of that much I am certain. Should I be a solipsist who believes that only he is real and all else is illusion? It is impossible to prove that our perceived reality is actually real as opposed to being an illusion. In Hinduism, it is taught that our perceived world is Maya or illusion. Is it true? It is impossible to prove either way. The film 'The Matrix' shows humans plugged into a simulated reality while being used as battery for artificial intelligence. The Simulation Hypothesis is untestable. Is consciousness an illusion? The word illusion means 'not what it seems'. We might believe that we are beings or even immortal souls/spirits when we may only be impermanent and malleable processes produced by the workings of the brain. I recommend that you watch this TED Talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_tay ... sight.html

The talk is by Jill Bolte Taylor who is a neuroscientist who had a stroke. What I find fascinating about her is that she believes in a spirit which transcends the brain. She also believes in a Great Spirit - she mentioned it on Oprah: http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Jill-Bo ... ries-Video

I also recommend that you read 'The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat' by Oliver Sacks. The man who mistook his wife for a hat had visual agnosia which meant that he could see but could not identify what he saw. My point is that we can't overcome deteministic variables through some 'free' will. All we do is totally according to deteministic variables.

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Free will. Interesting talk by Susan Blackmore

#48 Post by Compassionist » February 2nd, 2014, 2:24 pm

animist wrote:I feel you are a bit naïve to think that sincere searches for truth must lead to agreement; your wife is I imagine as sincere as you in searching for truth but the differences between her and your ideas are enormous and maybe unbridgeable.
I was thinking a bit more about what you said. I then remembered my blog and what I said there when I was a Christian. You should read it: http://www.43things.com/entries/view/4933630

My wife is still at the place I used to be about God, the Bible and Jesus, as are other Christians.

Post Reply