Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Free will conundrum explored

Posted by alexandra_k on December 10, 2004, at 16:39:08

In reply to Re: Free will conundrum explored » alexandra_k, posted by Mark H. on December 9, 2004, at 18:38:20

It sounds like you are quite keen on Hume's line. I hope that the higher / lower order beliefs / desires stuff wasn't too confusing. A lower (or first order) belief or desire is about something or other. A higher (or second order) belief or desire is about one of the first order beliefs / desires.

So let us suppose I have a stong urge (first order desire) to drink alchohol. If I act on that immediately then there is a sense in which I am not free. I am a slave to my impulses. If I consider things a bit more, however, and reflect on the pro's and con's and discover that I have a strong second order desire that I wish to god I never had that first order desire to drink - and I do not drink in response then there is a sense in which I am free.

Why? Because in a sense for an act to be MY free choice it has to be determined by me. The more of ME (of my beliefs and desires) that come into play before I act, the more the act is truely mine.

(None of this helps solve the paradox of libertarian free will - but I guess we have already agreed that we can't have that, so we are looking to explore what it is that we do have instead???)

So...

> Even if my neurons start firing or my muscles start moving before I am conscious of having made a decision, my ability to affirm and renew that decision repeatedly in the future (or to make a different decision) is suggestive of free will. Free will takes place within a larger context, certainly, and subject to the constraints of the environment, which is inclusive of personal biology, upbringing, beliefs and life experiences, among other things.

Yeah. In the 'could have done otherwise sense' none of that helps. But with respect to what I have been talking about that makes a lot of sense.

Instead of trying to get the 'common' man to define terms (and getting into all sorts of horrid paradoxes) some philosophers think we need to start by considering our ordinary use of language. In our everyday talk we consider acts to be more or less free and so from there we try to work out why some are whereas others are not.

> Personal freedom may be an illusion in the ultimate sense, then, but it exists within relative reality, doesn't it? Ask anyone who has successfully quit drinking. Resisting a compulsion -- or making an altruistic choice -- requires going against something akin to instinct. Absent free will, who would ever donate a kidney or do without food in protest of an injustice? Freedom is being able to change the implementation or direction of that neuronal impulse that preceded thought or action.

Higher order desires... Though even our higher order desires are determined, so it doesn't help with the possibility of them being otherwise from what they are...

> Perhaps we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of free will, and it becomes a matter of belief. To whatever extent, we are free to choose our beliefs based on the experiences they are likely to create for ourselves and others. If a belief in "no free will" leads me to nihilism and despair (or illusions of not being accountable for my actions), then it is not a very helpful belief. If a belief in "free will" makes me more optimistic, and I conduct myself in ways that make me a more compassionate person, then that belief is useful, even if it is empirically false.

Yes. Many have argued that even if it is false that there is free will, pragmatically speaking we need to live our lives as though we have free will anyway. I do not think that it follows that not having libertarian free will leads to nihilism and despair, though. It has for me in the past, but I don't think that this attitude logically has to follow. I don't believe in libertarian free will anymore. I am happy to consider that everything that happens is determined by laws of nature that are outside my control. I am happy to consider my conscious experience to be causally irrelevant for action. I am along for the ride.
I need experience no deep and debilitating guilt for my past bad behaviour - given my place at the time it was inevitable. Thanks to experience I now know better.

> freedom to influence the outcome a practical definition of free will?

Sure, if I act on my beliefs and desires then I act in a way that is (in a sense) determined by me. At the very least it is my act.

I think we agree :-)

I am pleased to have someone to talk to about this stuff. If you have never studied formal philosophy (and even if you have) you are a natural! Because you obviously care about these issues, and you express yourself clearly and comprehensibly indeed.

I have had a go at the god issue on these boards.
There are some arguments for the existence of god (and why they fail) on the faith board archives.
My arguments against the existence of god got redirected to the social board, so they are archived there.

Same problem again, the traditional theistic conception of god leads to a paradox and so we cannot have that kind of god! Something has to give if we want it to be at least possible that god exists.

If you are interested I would be happy to talk about that.

Or maybe that is more than enough thinking for a while!

Take care :-)

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:424323
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20041209/msgs/427363.html