Free will an absurdity
- This topic has 199 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Really, what lies befind the controversy over free will is the theory of causation. The classical precept of mechanical philosophy was articulated by the philosopher David Hume – namely that causes always precede effects. Causation is thus unidirectional in this view of the universe. You strike one bar billard ball with a cue and the ball collides with another which then collides with another causing the last to sink into the pocket at the far end of the table. It is purely mechanical and in theory entirely predictable
We may think we have free will, but advertisers know better–they know what will pull at our heartstrings, tickle our fancy, make us desire things we thought we could do without, and leave us with the feeling that we have complete control over our decisions.We are either manipulated by agency, or by sometimes motiveless societal pressures. Capitalism doesn't function in the interests of society as a whole, but because there are so few of us who have considered a fundamental change, capitalism has to justify its continuation and is rationalised into staying put, regardless of the consequences.
rodmanlewis wrote:robbo203 wrote:Really, what lies befind the controversy over free will is the theory of causation. The classical precept of mechanical philosophy was articulated by the philosopher David Hume – namely that causes always precede effects. Causation is thus unidirectional in this view of the universe. You strike one bar billard ball with a cue and the ball collides with another which then collides with another causing the last to sink into the pocket at the far end of the table. It is purely mechanical and in theory entirely predictableWe may think we have free will, but advertisers know better–they know what will pull at our heartstrings, tickle our fancy, make us desire things we thought we could do without, and leave us with the feeling that we have complete control over our decisions.We are either manipulated by agency, or by sometimes motiveless societal pressures. Capitalism doesn't function in the interests of society as a whole, but because there are so few of us who have considered a fundamental change, capitalism has to justify its continuation and is rationalised into staying put, regardless of the consequences.
Hmmmm. If advertisers "know" that we do not have free will , then why would they bother to advertise? They advertise in order to persuade or exhort us to buy their wares. That presupposes that we have a choice and are capable of choosing., Look, the concept of free will does NOT imply we are not influenced. That is a metaphysical version of the concept which I reject. I think it is this version that John has in mind which is why this debate is to some extent at cross purposes. I endorse a position known as soft determinism or compatabilism – that free will is compatible with determinism. I oppose hard determinism because hard determinsim presupposes everything in principle is totally predictable and also becuase its way of expliaining things is fundamentally reductionist and simplistic, Everything can be satisfactorily explained in physicalist terms since the physical world preceded and therefore gave rise to human conscousness which is seen as an effect rather than a cause in its own right. In other words hard determinism denies the possibility of "downward causation"http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/downward_causation.html Also I canot see the point of being a socialist or organising in a socialist party if you literally hold a hard determinist position, If the future is entirely predictable what is the purpose of trying to push for an alternative to capitalism? It will either happen or not happen as the case may be. Might as well grab some popcorn , put your feet up and watch the movie called Life being played out in front of you Marx argued that human beings make their own hstory but under circumstances not of their own choosing. The point os that he fully allowed for human agency and saw history as a creative process not a telelogical process. Marx was a soft determinist as am I and as I think every socialist should be
Your will is a cause. It is also an effect. It is not free, but motivated.If you accept this, then drop the adjective, and you will maintain linguistic consistency with the materialists, who were not all mechanists.Free will means your will is free from motive.Will, as a word, suffices.Choice, too, is motivated, not free. The word choice suffices.
I posted this on Facebook but suppose may as well share here too."We can thus see that the free will wars – disputes about whether or not we should go around denying free will, and what free will really is – are a function of differing definitions. If you’re referring to our capacity for voluntary choice-making that gives us rational control over our behavior, and that makes us responsible, then it would be wrong to deny that. If, on the other hand, you’re referring to a contra-causal capacity that supposedly makes us more responsible than what deterministic voluntary action affords, then it would be wrong not to deny that, at least on the assumption that we want a well-informed public.[4] So the first order of business when discussing free will is to make clear what you’re talking about, then make your point." http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/what-should-we-tell-people-about-free-willThere's also a good potted history of the debate here:http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/
KIt is clear then that most here:Reject the Western Socialist on free will.Reject the materialism of William Godwin and the Philosophes, and also of Percy Bysshe Shelley.So let that be an end to it.This old hat Socialist bows out.
Are we to expect an official repudiation of the Western Socialist with regard to the subject of free will as understood by its editor and contributor?And a similar repudiation of Shelley and the writings of the materialist greats?And similarly, a redefinition of the term free will that will consign these writers to the dustbin? Thank you.J. Oswald.
Thanks for interesting contributions, John, Robbo and all.Robbo – as regards “emergence” – I’ve had a quick read up on it – maybe a huge simplification, but it seems to me it’s a case of “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”…..John, I’m still tempted to agree with you that the “free” in “free will” can be dropped – and that in doing that, we’re still not too far from being “soft determinists”, but I may be wrong. I need to mull this over a bit more.DJP, I agree that agreeing on a definition is important before we start discussing something.Back to a biological perspective: I am confident that we are NOT lumbering automatons, or “prisoners of our genes”. It’s impossible for genes to “program” an organism for all eventualities, all behaviours or courses of actions it might have to take in order to keep itself safe and healthy, and to successfully procreate. Genes can only give us general instructions to achieve these purposes, like “keep yourself alive by all means possible”, “keep breathing”, “find food and water”, “find a mate”, etc. Exactly how this should be successfully done is left to our higher functioning systems.And whereas you cannot change your human, genetic makeup, you can change the genetic makeup of your microbiome, by changing your diet, avoiding toxins, not overdoing the use of antibiotics, etc.
I never said we are automata, and I did say I reject genetic determinism.
John said:
Quote:I never said we are automata, and I did say I reject genetic determinism.The bit about automatons was a comment on my own musings in a previous post; it was not claiming that you had said it.
When trying to remember something, one follows backward the chain of one's thoughts, which thought caused the one after it, until one arrives at the forgotten thought.
John Oswald wrote:When trying to remember something, one follows backward the chain of one's thoughts, which thought caused the one after it, until one arrives at the forgotten thought.So if I want to remember something I did last year I first have to remember every thought I have had since then? Fat chance. Memory doesn't work like that at all. Why are you even posting such rubbish?
No, O Mighty Sage of Profound Wisdom.I am simply illustrating a means to activate memory, seeing as thoughts are produced by their antecedents.If you can remember a thought you had a year ago, you're doing very well, but the desire to will first bring to mind the situation which produced a chain of thought at the time.My obeisances, O Profound One.
To be fair, I’ve had motor insurance since I was 19.
Doesn’t mean I thought I’d end up being killed on the road.However, logically, if you’ve got the money to spare, even if I didn’t think the apocalypse will be coming, anyone would have a back up plan.
That said, given that you think that we have no free will and that it’s all preordained, why worry?
Are you trying to get me reprimanded by the moderator for going off-thread by answering your misguided jibe about my views on free will? You know i can’t answer without going off thread.
Briefly: We don’t sit back and just let things happen, because we are part of the chain of cause and effect and do not exist separate from it. It is upon us to push causation in the direction we want it to go. This does not imply free will, only will.
If your will were free and independent of the chain of cause and effect, then there would be no point in its participation. It’s because we do comprehend that cause produces effect and that our will is itself made by it and can therefore act within it, that we do political work, that we hope will push others’ wills toward socialism too.How does our obvious lack of free will imply pre-ordainment? Surely, that’s a category error? I didn’t have a choice about being a socialist. My brain did that. Just as my brain makes me put the case for socialism at every opportunity regardless of who feels alienated by the sisterfucking truth when it smacks them in they teeth. I mean, come on…Humans make their own history, right? Just not the way they wanted it to be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.