Philosophy: on Freewill. (No Death).

[Cyrano]

Either side is non-rational

Well D'anna, welcome to philosophy, it's all about the non-rational, if you dislike it, you don't bother arguing.

I don't dislike it, I'm trying to state the fact that it is non-rational so that absolute terms like "evidence" don't work. If anything related to philosophy is absolute enough to be referred to as "fact." That was my entire point, thanks for the agreement.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Free will is usually defined as the ability to make choices based on personal choice, personal morality, etc. It's also defined occasionally as the negative space around determinism. An absolute definition is impossible to make, really, for any philosophy.
And if you're wondering how anyone can be free when your personality counts as an "influence", I made a post about that.

See, those aren't even remotely precise definitions of free will. What you refer to as "free will" doesn't seem to be "free" at all. It's entirely controlled by a number of things, such as your biology, your upbringing, and, heck, how your neurons are firin'.

If free will is so free, why are people (in large groups) so predictable? Why is advertising so devastatingly effective? Modern marketing is almost entirely based on the lack of free will.

[Scalens]

Really? So you assume that Philosophy can be defined as having sense, can you? I'm going to ignore the amazing irrelevance of your bringing in death and time (Oh wait! Just did. Sorry) and instead focus on one experiment.
Give me a solid definition of any philosophical construct. Then give me a definition of sense. I will have a different definition of that same philosophical construct, by light of me being a different person. Then I will refer you to your definition of sense. Philosophy is not absolute. Thousands of years and millions of deaths have proven nothing if not that.

He never claimed philosophy was absolute. Nor does it need to be to make sense.

As for the "experiment"... the only Categorical Imperative is Kant's Categorical Imperative. Redefinition is not possible, albeit interpretation and explanation are.

[Cryopyre]

I don't dislike it, I'm trying to state the fact that it is non-rational so that absolute terms like "evidence" don't work. If anything related to philosophy is absolute enough to be referred to as "fact." That was my entire point, thanks for the agreement.

In that case your welcome.

It seemed you were coming off as one of those "Well why even discuss it then" moping type.

But if you will actively participate that's great.

[Siwenna]

There IS no evidence because it is UNPROVEABLE.

BUt nothing is PROVABLE when you get right down to it. I say none of this is real. I'm dreaming everyone up, and I actually live in a universe with an entirely different nature. This is just a crazy, possibly drug-induced, dream the real me is having. Or maybe you're dreaming all of us up. It's a bizarre possibility, but it's still a possibility.

Ultimately it boils down to do you want to live your life like YOU are in charge of it, or do you want to live your life like someone else is in charge of you.

I live my life like I'm in charge of it. Our entire civilization is based on that. We need to act like we have freewill, otherwise everything would fall apart. Yes, I could blame the first primitive cell every time I screw something up, but that gets nowhere. Anyway, I think we're genetically programmed to believe in freewill, just because it basically makes civilization possible. I don't think we have freewill, but some of fears, for instance, seem based on the premise that we have freewill, which can be removed under certain conditions.

[Rachel Lorelei]

BUt nothing is PROVABLE when you get right down to it. I say none of this is real. I'm dreaming everyone up, and I actually live in a universe with an entirely different nature. This is just a crazy, possibly drug-induced, dream the real me is having. Or maybe you're dreaming all of us up. It's a bizarre possibility, but it's still a possibility.

Why do people even bother saying this? I'm just guessing here, but the world is really real is kind of a shared premise we have here. What's the point of pretending you don't share it? It's a "possibility" that adds absolutely nothing to the debate and is only used whenever something one favors gets dismissed as unproven.
Solipsism isn't helpful, kids.

[averagejoe]

Why do people even bother saying this? I'm just guessing here, but the world is really real is kind of a shared premise we have here. What's the point of pretending you don't share it? It's a "possibility" that adds absolutely nothing to the debate and is only used whenever something one favors gets dismissed as unproven.
Solipsism isn't helpful, kids.

For that matter, why enter into a discussion on free will? It has the same basic problems as dicussing existance.

[Setra]

Didn't read the whole thread, but a good deal of it (Got bored of reading long paragraphs).

My (simpleton, if you will) comments are this.

What you may call an illusion of free will, I think, is close enough to call free will. You chose to make this topic, did you not? Why did you? You wanted a discussion, or arguement, in any case.

If humans have an illusion in their heads, that lets them go "Should I eat Chinese or Italian?", something that lets them ask themselves questions, whether simple, like this, or complex, such as thoughts as free will in the first place, even if it is an illusion, it's close enough to reality that it really doesn't matter.

I chose to respond to this. I thought in my head "Should I respond to this?", and chose yes, after some delay. The fact that I thought about it, is close enough to proof for me.

You may go ahead and rip through my arguement.

[Tom_Violence]

Really? So you assume that Philosophy can be defined as having sense, can you? I'm going to ignore the amazing irrelevance of your bringing in death and time (Oh wait! Just did. Sorry) and instead focus on one experiment.
Give me a solid definition of any philosophical construct. Then give me a definition of sense. I will have a different definition of that same philosophical construct, by light of me being a different person. Then I will refer you to your definition of sense. Philosophy is not absolute. Thousands of years and millions of deaths have proven nothing if not that.

Ooo, scathing.

He never claimed philosophy was absolute. Nor does it need to be to make sense.

As for the "experiment"... the only Categorical Imperative is Kant's Categorical Imperative. Redefinition is not possible, albeit interpretation and explanation are.

Exactly. There are plenty of others too. E.g.:

(Simplified) Hedonistic Utilitarianism - pleasure is good, pain is bad. Therefore the best thing to do is what maximises pleasure/minimises pain.

And: Sense.

Now, you can disagree with the premises of someone's argument and propose better ones, but you need to have rational reasons for doing so. You can argue that one's conclusion does not follow from the premises, but in order to do that you'd at least need to know what 'logic' is. Otherwise you might as well stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la its just your opinion". Well done for noticing that philosophy doesn't arrive at absolutes, but neither does science. Well done as well for discovering that our own perspective is an obstacle in debate. But neither of these things rule out progress or people having better answers for things than others. You can be a skeptic about absolutely anything, but that doesn't make it a tenuable position.

Edit:

Why do people even bother saying this? I'm just guessing here, but the world is really real is kind of a shared premise we have here. What's the point of pretending you don't share it? It's a "possibility" that adds absolutely nothing to the debate and is only used whenever something one favors gets dismissed as unproven.
Solipsism isn't helpful, kids.

I think Siwenna was being intentionally flippant to demonstrate the point that, indeed, Solipsism is no use in a debate about anything other than Solipsism. That is to say, you can stick your head in the sand whenever you like but it does it bring about a useless stalemate, and is about as fruitable as saying "why?" to every single thing someone says.

[Telonius]

BUt nothing is PROVABLE when you get right down to it. I say none of this is real. I'm dreaming everyone up, and I actually live in a universe with an entirely different nature. This is just a crazy, possibly drug-induced, dream the real me is having. Or maybe you're dreaming all of us up. It's a bizarre possibility, but it's still a possibility.



I live my life like I'm in charge of it. Our entire civilization is based on that. We need to act like we have freewill, otherwise everything would fall apart. Yes, I could blame the first primitive cell every time I screw something up, but that gets nowhere. Anyway, I think we're genetically programmed to believe in freewill, just because it basically makes civilization possible. I don't think we have freewill, but some of fears, for instance, seem based on the premise that we have freewill, which can be removed under certain conditions.

So if free will didn't exist, we'd have to invent it...?

[Leliel]

BUt nothing is PROVABLE when you get right down to it. I say none of this is real. I'm dreaming everyone up, and I actually live in a universe with an entirely different nature. This is just a crazy, possibly drug-induced, dream the real me is having. Or maybe you're dreaming all of us up. It's a bizarre possibility, but it's still a possibility.



I live my life like I'm in charge of it. Our entire civilization is based on that. We need to act like we have freewill, otherwise everything would fall apart. Yes, I could blame the first primitive cell every time I screw something up, but that gets nowhere. Anyway, I think we're genetically programmed to believe in freewill, just because it basically makes civilization possible. I don't think we have freewill, but some of fears, for instance, seem based on the premise that we have freewill, which can be removed under certain conditions.

Forgive me for being a newbie, and thus maybe a flawed perspective, but isn't this the very definition of free will?

And what is it about souls you find threatening? Are you afraid of ghosts?

[Cyrano]

Ok, guys, as for all your decidely sad-making remarks ( . See? Sad-making), I was not using non-absolute philosophy and lack of evidence as a philosophical position! I was using it to dissuade you guys (you know who you are, I quoted you) from going "Why do you disregard EVIDENCE of free will" or "thus free will MUST exist." I haven't actually stated my opinion yet! That's what most of this post is for.

See, those aren't even remotely precise definitions of free will. What you refer to as "free will" doesn't seem to be "free" at all. It's entirely controlled by a number of things, such as your biology, your upbringing, and, heck, how your neurons are firin'.

That's my personal definition, in fact! Bravo! That's my opinion of free will, ie, it ain't. I made a post about this, in this very thread. You make decisions based on personality, a construct that is (arguably) based on formative environment, that is based on parent/guardian's actions, that are based on personality, etc. Your actions are defined by other's. Now, that's because I've never found a definition of free will that would cause me to disagree with this, but my position is in no way absolute.

If free will is so free, why are people (in large groups) so predictable? Why is advertising so devastatingly effective? Modern marketing is almost entirely based on the lack of free will.

Ahem. You can see above, or like me, you can start thinking that in large groups, we revert to some pseudo-instinctual more-more-more impulse like animals. They both fit.

[Eldpollard]

Free will raises a few arguments.
Some argue free will cannot exist as human reasoning is based entirely on brain functions which lack concious thought and any thought comes about through biological process as opposed to choice.
The counter argument to the above is the idea of a higher conciousness that is above biological processes and can think rationally (or irrationally).
However no evidence exists to prove either correct or incorrect.

EDIT: I failed to say my own standpoint in this argument. I'd like the idea of free will to exist however biological imperative takes precedence and as such I feel that free-will does not exist. Not to mention the outside factors that contribute to our thoughts, such as marketing and large groups which have already been said. If these outside factors influence us then in what way can it be said that we have free will?

[Siwenna]

And what is it about souls you find threatening? Are you afraid of ghosts?

It's not the idea souls specifically that I dislike, rather any sort of unexplainable supposed phenomenon. If something is truely unexplainable then it means that there are no inherent physical laws in the universe. I know plenty of people are not bothered by that, but my deeply held belief on the nature depends on the universe being ultimately an explainable place. I'm putting everything rather badly, but it's so difficult to verbalize basic beliefs that I don't think I can make it any clearer.

[Einkil]

If we are not owners of our will, we don't have nothing...

At least y choose what i choose..

[Telonius]

It's not the idea souls specifically that I dislike, rather any sort of unexplainable supposed phenomenon. If something is truely unexplainable then it means that there are no inherent physical laws in the universe. I know plenty of people are not bothered by that, but my deeply held belief on the nature depends on the universe being ultimately an explainable place. I'm putting everything rather badly, but it's so difficult to verbalize basic beliefs that I don't think I can make it any clearer.

(emphasis added)

Not necessarily. It could simply mean that there are things outside this space-time that intersect with, and affect, us. They might be impossible (by our laws of physics) to detect, and may well be incoherent based on our physical laws. However, within our existence, the universe makes sense and is explainable. And even if ghosts, time-travelling green aliens from Dimension QX342, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist, they might follow laws specific to their universe (but not ours). From our perspective this might seem to be chaos; we would appear in a similar manner to them.

Either way, there is at least one thing in this universe that is not explainable by its own laws: why should it be, that anything exists at all? To know this, you would have to know what happened prior to the Big Bang - which is impossible, considering that (at least the last time I checked) time wasn't supposed to exist "prior" to the Big Bang. Universal laws didn't exist, because the universe didn't exist.