Please tell me we have free will

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Don’t want you to try his little empirical trial on yourself but there are ways you can ‘voluntarily’ cease breathing.

Not really, no. You can wound yourself in such a way that breathing will eventually stop, but you cannot voluntarily stop breathing. 

My point is valid regardless of what word games you try to play. 

[Dissily Mordentroge]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not really, no. You can wound yourself in such a way that breathing will eventually stop, but you cannot voluntarily stop breathing. 

My point is valid regardless of what word games you try to play. 

And you’re not playing word games? You’ve given yourself a narrow definition of ‘ voluntarily stop breathing’ without bothering to elucidate it’s characteristic/ limits .

If consuming a toxic overdose with the intention of ceasing breathing is outside your definition such should have been delineated prior to availing yourself of the phrase.

But you can always hide behind the claim consuming a toxic overdose can never be an act of free will and continue to go around and around in circles.

I choose not to. 

 

 

[iNow]

Breathing is autonomic, by definition not voluntary. You could voluntarily tie a bag around your head for all I care, but your body would still attempt to breath. Your suggestion that your personal will is free in this regard is absurd. 

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

And you’re not playing word games? You’ve given yourself a narrow definition of ‘ voluntarily stop breathing’ without bothering to elucidate it’s characteristic/ limits .

If consuming a toxic overdose with the intention of ceasing breathing is outside your definition such should have been delineated prior to availing yourself of the phrase.

But you can always hide behind the claim consuming a toxic overdose can never be an act of free will and continue to go around and around in circles.

I choose not to. 

 

 

can you choose not to be you?

But thats also why I lean towards Eise in this.

iNow, while we are a product of our seed and can’t choose the ground, we can choose to feed

I’m not saying you’re right btw Dissily Mordentroge, because you’re not...

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Breathing is autonomic, by definition not voluntary. You could voluntarily tie a bag around your head for all I care, but your body would still attempt to breath. Your suggestion that your personal will is free in this regard is absurd. 

Thoughts prompted by this:

Neural plasticity, based on repetitive experience creates automatic pathways that bypasses the need for conscious decision-making; that ‘readiness potential’ signal that pure determinists bring up, may be indicative of that automatic unconscious process. Perhaps, generally, it is only more novel experiences/inputs that may require consciously thinking about; the things we do all the time  may generate neuroplastically-created circuits. I don’t know if there is research that controls for this .

[iNow]

That’s an interesting observation, though even conscious awareness of the thoughts seems to happen several hundred milliseconds after the thought itself occurs (whether it be something practiced or something novel, the same thing occurs). 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s an interesting observation, though even conscious awareness of the thoughts seems to happen several hundred milliseconds after the thought itself occurs (whether it be something practiced or something novel, the same thing occurs). 

perhaps the thought occurs at the convergence of the stimuli.

[Eise]

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Neural plasticity, based on repetitive experience creates automatic pathways that bypasses the need for conscious decision-making; that ‘readiness potential’ signal that pure determinists bring up, may be indicative of that automatic unconscious process. Perhaps, generally, it is only more novel experiences/inputs that may require consciously thinking about; the things we do all the time  may generate neuroplastically-created circuits. I don’t know if there is research that controls for this .

AFAIK this is the way at least some neurologists see it this way, and I think it has its merits. E.g. it gives an explanation of the effect of training. Consciousness is notoriously slow, and where fast action is needed, like in sports, you must train, so that most actions really bypass consciousness. But that has no impact on the matter of free will: the origin of the 'consciousness bypassing action' is still you (that bag of water...), and you will notice when an unconscious action is blocked.

Imagine Roger Federer is playing a tennis match, but then somebody comes from behind, and suddenly holds Federer's tennis racket. Federer immediately will notice that his partially unconscious 'trained tennis program' is interrupted, and will be able to report that he just wanted to play the ball in the utmost left corner, before he was blocked. This reporting maybe consciousness after the fact, but that is no problem: as long as you recognise the action as your own, see the motives behind them, you will also recognise when you are blocked, i.e. when you cannot act according your own motives.

So the simplest of definitions of free will, being able to do what you want, is not touched by this. It is only the heavily metaphysically loaded definition of 'uncaused consciousness always must cause our actions (and therefore precede it) for an action to be free', that is refuted by such mechanisms. But in a naturalist world view such a definition makes no sense from the beginning. It probably makes no sense at all.

[AviiPk]

 

Free will .... Free will .... Determinism. 

I'll start with talking the internal monologue which most of us think with and read to ourselves with. 

An inner monologue, also called self talk, inner speach, inner discourse or internal discourse, is a person's inner voice which provides a running verbal monologue of thoughts while they are conscious. It is usually tied to a person's sense of self. It is particularly important in planning, problem solving, self-reflection, self-image, critical thinking, emotions, and subvocalization (reading in one's head). It may reflect both conscious and subconscious belief

 

Previously in humanity people we bicameral.

This condition of being divided into "two-chambers") is a hypothesis in psychology that argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys. 

If you were hungry for example you would not feel or think that you were hungry but instead would hear a voice telling you to go get food and eat and you would listen and act on it.

If you were living in a state of bicameralism you would have no free will you would be the slave of a monologue which you cannot control and therefore with a future neither free nor determined. 

What if though psychology and (or) hypnosis you were able to tap into someone's dorment bicameral mind and become the voice they listen to. " IF " someone's path was pre determined or " IF " they had free will , could you strip them of either ? 

Have corporations and government already acted on this ? 

Possibly........

 

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, AviiPk said:

I'll start with talking the internal monologue which most of us think with and read to ourselves with. 

From what I have read (and conversations I have had) it is no clear that *most* people have this inner monologue.

(Obviously those who have it are stunned to find that others don't; and those who don't are baffled by the concept.)

I have no idea if there is any connection between this and belief, or otherwise, in free will. 

I don't know if there is any correlation with aphantasia, either.

4 hours ago, AviiPk said:

What if though psychology and (or) hypnosis you were able to tap into someone's dorment bicameral mind and become the voice they listen to. " IF " someone's path was pre determined or " IF " they had free will , could you strip them of either ? 

But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says.

4 hours ago, AviiPk said:

Have corporations and government already acted on this ? 

Possibly........

There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no.

4 hours ago, AviiPk said:

What if though psychology and (or) hypnosis you were able to tap into someone's dorment bicameral mind and become the voice they listen to. " IF " someone's path was pre determined or " IF " they had free will , could you strip them of either ? 

But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says.

4 hours ago, AviiPk said:

Have corporations and government already acted on this ? 

Possibly........

There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no.

And, note that this has nothing to do with the voices heard by people suffering from schizophrenia and other disorders: those voices are (or appear to be) external, not an inner voice.

[StringJunky]

54 minutes ago, Strange said:

From what I have read (and conversations I have had) it is no clear that *most* people have this inner monologue.

(Obviously those who have it are stunned to find that others don't; and those who don't are baffled by the concept.)

I have no idea if there is any connection between this and belief, or otherwise, in free will. 

I don't know if there is any correlation with aphantasia, either.

But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says.

There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no.

But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says.

There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no.

And, note that this has nothing to do with the voices heard by people suffering from schizophrenia and other disorders: those voices are (or appear to be) external, not an inner voice.

From what I've read, the external voice is a consequence of the brain rejecting the inner voice as alien.

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

From what I've read, the external voice is a consequence of the brain rejecting the inner voice as alien.

That may well be true (and the sorts of things these voices say, are not things you would normally say to yourself). But I think it is important to realise that people hear them as external: ie. as if they were coming from a loudspeaker or an invisible person. Not the same as when you talk to yourself in your head.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

That may well be true (and the sorts of things these voices say, are not things you would normally say to yourself). But I think it is important to realise that people hear them as external: ie. as if they were coming from a loudspeaker or an invisible person. Not the same as when you talk to yourself in your head.

Yes. It would seem in that situation, since the ability to have internal dialogue is taken away, such a person may not have much freewill.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes. It would seem in that situation, since the ability to have internal dialogue is taken away, such a person may not have much freewill.

That is an interesting question: do people who hear voices (whether schizophrenic or for other reasons) lose their internal voice (if they ever had one) or can they still have their internal dialog ("don't listen to those voices out there", "but I can't help it").

There are people who hear voices but they are just an annoyance. The problem with disorders like schizophrenia (as I understand it) is that they are also often associated with delusional beliefs which can lead to them acting irrationally. And there are people with schizophrenia who learn to live fairly normally with the voices. I heard a fantastic (and very sad) interview with a woman who had learned to live with schizophrenia; the voices were always there talking and shouting at her. She just had to try and carry on with her life.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is an interesting question: do people who hear voices (whether schizophrenic or for other reasons) lose their internal voice (if they ever had one) or can they still have their internal dialog ("don't listen to those voices out there", "but I can't help it").

There are people who hear voices but they are just an annoyance. The problem with disorders like schizophrenia (as I understand it) is that they are also often associated with delusional beliefs which can lead to them acting irrationally. And there are people with schizophrenia who learn to live fairly normally with the voices. I heard a fantastic (and very sad) interview with a woman who had learned to live with schizophrenia; the voices were always there talking and shouting at her. She just had to try and carry on with her life.

I think they lose control of it rather than actually lose it. You might find this interesting: 

https://slate.com/technology/2016/03/schizophrenia-and-subvocal-speech-why-people-with-schizophrenia-hear-the-voices-of-god-spies-and-supernatural-entities.html

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think they lose control of it rather than actually lose it. You might find this interesting: 

https://slate.com/technology/2016/03/schizophrenia-and-subvocal-speech-why-people-with-schizophrenia-hear-the-voices-of-god-spies-and-supernatural-entities.html

Interesting. But I wonder about people (like me) who have no inner voice or narration; do we still subvocalise but are completely unaware of it?

(This is fascinating, but ever so slightly off topic. Maybe we should ask for this to be split off.)

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Interesting. But I wonder about people (like me) who have no inner voice or narration; do we still subvocalise but are completely unaware of it?

(This is fascinating, but ever so slightly off topic. Maybe we should ask for this to be split off.)

Yes, it might be worth splitting off and seeing if it goes anywhere.

[AviiPk]

It may for you not be processed or interpreted as words. Maybe more so a structure of though which to create an understanding of purpose..

[tmx3]

On 12/15/2019 at 8:34 PM, NonScientist said:

Okay, so I’m new here. Hi everyone.

So I’m not sure why this is affecting me this severely, but I recently discovered the whole “free will vs. determinism” question, and I’ve realized quickly that I should’ve never been introduced to this idea, because I’m finding it almost impossible to deal with the notion of not having free will. It has sent my mind into this state of extreme shock, agony, and despair that almost seems insurmountable. It’s like my whole world and everything I believed has been flipped on its head. I’m serious in saying that this has sent me into a straight panic and shock. I feel like I’m having this nervous breakdown. It’s an overwhelming feeling.

 I’m trying to keep myself calm and just relax, but this has really messed me up. 

Does anyone here believe in free will? Or can offer any good defenses or arguments for free will? I feel like I need to be reassured that there is free will or else I won’t be able to deal with it. The idea that everything is predetermined, and I’m just robot with no agency or ability to do otherwise is more than my psyche can handle. I’m sort of in this crisis.

I completely believe we have free will.  I would give an example from the Holy Bible but refrained since I'm not sure if that's the kind of evidence you'd want to hear. Let me know if you do, and I'll give you my perspective on it.

From a more scientific point of view, you'll find this interesting... Look up this disease called Toxoplasma gondii, research it a little.     You'll find that it's a parasite wanting to live and reproduce in the intestines/stomach of cats but can only enter the cat through an intermediary host (like a bird or rat) as it needs an intermediary to morph into the form which can then travel within a cat's body.

For a while, people noticed a strange type of "bravery" occurring in rats, where these rats would jump at cats instead of running away from them.  When these rats were taken into the lab for testing, they were found to have this same parasite living in them, and these parasites were essentially manipulating the rat's normal behavior (which would be to run away from cats) and instead were a cause for the rats to be appearing brave and jumping toward the cats--basically doing what they would otherwise choose to not do.    

The goal of this neuroparasite is to have its intermediary host ingested by the cat, so that the parasites can then make their way to the stomach/intestines of the cat, which is where they reproduce. 

Look at it this way... a parasite was able to alter the way a rat would normally behave, so that the rat would specifically have itself killed and eaten by a cat, which is where the parasite was trying to go... 

It still blows my mind thinking about it, but, yes, free will does exist. That's half my take on it; the other half I'm leaving out to avoid the type of talk people these days run from.

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

I would give an example from the Holy Bible but refrained since I'm not sure if that's the kind of evidence you'd want to hear.

Unless you’re citing the Bible as evidence of human gullibility, willingness to accept as true internally inconsistent and contradictory messages, or the idea that popular fictions existed even thousands of years ago, then no. It’s not the type of “evidence” that belongs anywhere near a scientific discussion. 
 

17 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Look at it this way... a parasite was able to alter the way a rat would normally behave, so that the rat would specifically have itself killed and eaten by a cat, which is where the parasite was trying to go... 

Unless you’re saying humans would be somehow immune to this type of parasite, then this example actually speaks to the absence of free will, not the existence of it.  It’s directly counter to the conclusion at which you’ve arrived for seemingly religious reasons. 

Edited March 15, 2020 by iNow

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unless you’re saying humans would be somehow immune to this type of parasite, then this example actually speaks to the absence of free will, not the existence of it.  It’s directly counter to the conclusion at which you’ve arrived for seemingly religious reasons. 

I was thinking the same thing as I read the post. At least if the cat had run away while infected with the parasite, or if the cat had stayed while free of the parasite, it would have been an example that might indicate a free will.

[iNow]

Yeah. Put more simply, it reads like this: “I can voluntarily choose to avoid vomiting whenever I want to and no matter how sick I get. For example, every time I take epicac I puke.” Derp. Wtf

[tmx3]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless you’re citing the Bible as evidence of human gullibility, willingness to accept as true internally inconsistent and contradictory messages, or the idea that popular fictions existed even thousands of years ago, then no. It’s not the type of “evidence” that belongs anywhere near a scientific discussion. 
 

Unless you’re saying humans would be somehow immune to this type of parasite, then this example actually speaks to the absence of free will, not the existence of it.  It’s directly counter to the conclusion at which you’ve arrived for seemingly religious reasons. 

My message is for OP. Not you. Keep your attitude to a zero or don't bother messaging me with your disgusting self. You're superior to no one for you to go on typing on a keyboard like you have all the answers. I'm giving my input and perspective to OP. Allow me to do that without you coming at me like a disgusting, attitude filled narcissistic pretentious know it all.

The fact that there is absence of free will, means there is free will to begin with. Try to use common sense and not a whole bunch of words you learned from your writing class that you want to throw at me, okay? Okay.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I was thinking the same thing as I read the post. At least if the cat had run away while infected with the parasite, or if the cat had stayed while free of the parasite, it would have been an example that might indicate a free will.

That doesn't even make sense. Who in their right mind would even want to put themselves into harm's way? Inherently, we want to do the right thing, the thing healthiest for us, be at peace and in harmony with other beings. Why would anyone willingly choose some disaster to befall them? Clearly it was the neuroparasite manipulating the rat's will to do itself any good, by forcing it to go into a situation where it would do itself harm (get killed, get eaten). Its free will is being affected. Its will is being imposed upon by the will of another. That is the whole point.

[zapatos]

A parasite making the rat do something is not an example of free will on the part of the rat. It's that simple.

[tmx3]

A parasite making the rat do something that it would otherwise choose to not do, is an example of free will on the rat's part. It's that simple.

@zapatos 

Edited March 15, 2020 by tmx3
Edited because unlike some people who like to disagree or throw shade without being direct, I wanted to directly indicate with whom I'm discussing.