Free Will Redux: A Question

[Davis]

An hour and a half video cannot possibly do his theory justice nor would I consider that a “short period of time” to give a basic outline. But then you have relegated your philosophical journey to youtube, so there’s that. I’m sorry I ever suggested the whole “intellectual laziness” thing. Whatever should I have expected from a philosophy graduate.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by Davis.

[PopeBeanie]

_Robert_ wrote:

Is this really a binary question? Maybe the “free” part of “free will” can be graded somehow.

I think about that a lot. If we could ever find a way to discuss it as if it really exists, I’m sure it would be scalar, not binary. One’s ability to behave according to want/will/planning can vary depending on health, genes, drugs, external circumstances, and so on. I think Dennett’s explained that there are “degrees of freedom”.

Maybe the feeling of free will can diminish when one knows that death is near?

[Unseen]

Davis wrote:

An hour and a half video cannot possibly do his theory justice nor would I consider that a “short period of time” to give a basic outline. But then you have relegated your philosophical journey to youtube, so there’s that. I’m sorry I ever suggested the whole “intellectual laziness” thing. Whatever should I have expected from a philosophy graduate.

Do you think you could discuss this topic without your daily character assassination and ad hominems that amount to a poisoning of the well.

You seem to be saying that only highly-trained philosophers should be discussing this, preferably in a philosophy class, and that ordinary people can’t simply understand such a difficult topic. BULLSHIT!

Well, you know m view: If it can’t be explained so a layman can understand it, it’s not a solution. Philosophy isn’t physics. It’s a concern of ordinary people which means it had better be understandable without reading a lengthy philo text or taking a grad level course on free will.

I’m at a stage in my life, age 74, where I draw conclusions. I will consider arguments against my view that can be EXPLAINED. You can’t explain them and it’s hard to know if it’s just more fun to engage in character assassination than it is to explain or if you really have nothing to explain.

If you have a view, reveal it for once.

[jakelafort]

Unseen the most recent vid you posted of Dennett on free will and punishment is bereft of substance. Just like the prior vids…it is wish thinking. It seems like arrive at a position and then figure out some shit to say to support your position.

In your words… he all along the way assumes what he seems to be trying to prove.

Where he has tried to defend or support his position he was being aesthetic and arbitrary. Oh, the foibles, troibles and conceits of humans!

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen the most recent vid you posted of Dennett on free will and punishment is bereft of substance. Just like the prior vids…it is wish thinking. It seems like arrive at a position and then figure out some shit to say to support your position. In your words… he all along the way assumes what he seems to be trying to prove. Where he has tried to defend or support his position he was being aesthetic and arbitrary. Oh, the foibles, troibles and conceits of humans!

I thought you might find this brief video at least entertaining.

[jakelafort]

Thanks Unseen.

I kinda know how it feels to have that homunculus inform me. At various times in court i would hear the other attorney’s arguments and without reflection know the flawed arguments. No thinking involved. Points A, D and L are flawed. The part of me that is aware had to figure out the weakness and that took at least a few seconds. Sam is right that there are so many thoughts that well up and we go about unaware of how and why.

BTW Dennett criticized Harris’ book on free will. The two have a big disagreement over free will and authors who have written scathing critiques of each other’s free will arguments.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Thanks Unseen. I kinda know how it feels to have that homunculus inform me. At various times in court i would hear the other attorney’s arguments and without reflection know the flawed arguments. No thinking involved. Points A, D and L are flawed. The part of me that is aware had to figure out the weakness and that took at least a few seconds. Sam is right that there are so many thoughts that well up and we go about unaware of how and why. BTW Dennett criticized Harris’ book on free will. The two have a big disagreement over free will and authors who have written scathing critiques of each other’s free will arguments.

Harris makes an interesting point that so much of what we think we did consciously and voluntarily happen behind the scenes and we are helpless to provide an explanation for them. They go on beyond our control in a preconsciousness. Often, when we provide an explanation, it’s an after-the-fact manufactured one concocted to justify the decision.

I knew Dennett and Harris have been at each other’s throats over this, even though Dennett says he counts Harris as a friend. I suspect it’s a classic intellectual disagreement with no real bad blood.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by Unseen.

[jakelafort]

I agree with you Unseen.

Ya know it is funny cuz i still think it is ME who is making the arguments after the little man tells me which ones to address. But even that analysis may be preconscious.

Hopefully the two can look past intellectual disagreements. I did notice Dennett giving Harris some obvious cheap shots in that video. And i really hate the appeal to authority or lack of authority. Arguments ought to succeed or fail on their merits.

[Simon Paynton]

Do you think this is related to the Buddhist question of whether there is a single essential self inside all of us, or whether we are all single collections of ever-changing parts.

I.e., does the “self” exist, whatever that is, or is the idea of a “you” an illusion?  What is meant by that?  Is this why the concept of free will is so slippery?

[jakelafort]

Simon this touches on your question.

https://www.sciencealert.com/brain-scans-confirm-there-is-a-part-of-you-that-remains-you-throughout-your-life

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Do you think this is related to the Buddhist question of whether there is a single essential self inside all of us, or whether we are all single collections of ever-changing parts. I.e., does the “self” exist, whatever that is, or is the idea of a “you” an illusion? What is meant by that? Is this why the concept of free will is so slippery?

A lot of philosophers and even scientists view consciousness as a kind of illusion, Simon, for one thing since it does not exist in real time. The physical processes involved introduce a time lag between the moment of nerve stimulation and the moment of awareness.

Also, even thinkers who see consciousness as an illusion, don’t claim there’s no important connection between consciousness and the real world. If you perceive your car drifting into oncoming traffic, you had better get your car back where it belongs!

One thinker, Nicholas Humphrey, a Cambridge psychologist, believes that consciousness is a kind of illusion produced by the brain. For Humphrey, consciousness had better be an illusion because the alternative is paranormality involving a soul or homunculus of some sort.

Sam Harris argues that the conscious self is an illusion in this video:.

BTW, Daniel Dennett agrees that consciousness is an illusion.

 

[Simon Paynton]

If there is free will, then is it the self that does the choosing?  What is the self?

I think there may be something strange about saying that consciousness is an illusion.  Surely an illusion is a false belief or story accepted as true by the conscious mind (or unconscious).  An illusion happens within the conscious mind.

[jakelafort]

THE ILLUSION PARADOX!

DELICIOUS ABSURDITY!

Bingo bango bongo…wingo wango wongo…i hunker for a piece of cheese!

[jakelafort]

not sorry to have used caps..that cultural take about offensiveness of capital letters is odds bodkin.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

If there is free will, then is it the self that does the choosing?

Good question.

What is the self? I think there may be something strange about saying that consciousness is an illusion. Surely an illusion is a false belief or story accepted as true by the conscious mind (or unconscious). An illusion happens within the conscious mind.

It’s not an illusion in the sense of a devious deception. It’s an illusion mapped onto reality, in a sense, but a little after-the-fact and not always with fully accurate properties.

[Author]

Posts