Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[IsThisMindMaterial]

We are products of certain types of necessity*. For instance, do we have a choice if we will be born? clearly not! Does that imply lack of free will? In a sense, yes. But does the issue of free will revolve around base necessities or the optional aspects of life? As for biological/chemical needs...there are people who don't sex despite the body emploring them to do it.

Very true. You have made a very good ontological explanation in defense of neuroplasticity. Our instincts are necessary when it involves forming [embodied] cognition - as well as our developed educations, intelligence and persona. However our consciousness, although dependent on cognition, can be molded or plasticized with metacognition. Buddhist, Scientist demonstrate the evidence in cognitive science.

Free will of thought is the deception of language. 'I think', language gives the impression that the thought follows our initiation of it. When it could be just as likely that the thought is thrust on us, we may have no will in the matter.

I think it can't be known and should be doubted - free will (exists most likely does not exist).

This logic is fantastic, however, I do disregard the whole consciousness is a cycle of energy flux - Integrated Theory of Consciousness. It's true and applicable, but that type of thinking, sounds mystical outside of certain realms of thought - to build off of such holistic philosophy as being the foundation, would prove problematic for most (but not necessarily in objectivity). As contemporary science does well to reject holistic ideologies and construct deductive methodologies, and contemporary philosophy does well in being just as atomistic as the scientific communities... We are left in a society where discussing quantum physics as normative discussion is invalid. The language is too esoteric. That goes for a lot of modern philosophy language. (Peculiar, as we (humans) may or could disagree on foundation, but be able to find common ground with 'constant' construction.)

Language is everything to whatever communication between each other can be, even if it is [theoretical] math.

(Nested quote removed.)


The way you phrased the question, it is not even analytically possible. Saying that a "human" is making a decision and then specifying that that decision is "free from chemical and electric signals and biological processes" is nonsense. A "human" is a being made up of biological processes, it cannot make a decision that is "free" of them.

You would have to identify an additional agency that makes the actual decision, but then it can hardly be called free will. The topic has been discussed on this forum and by philosophers of all ages ad nauseum, I don't think theres anything new to add.

LOL, you sir, are indeed a skilled analytic.

Assuming the mind is separate from the body (in debate or practicality) is frightening... Proves that philosophical education (academia) negates scientific evidence as applicable. So bizarre to be an against naturalizing epistemology.

To add naturalized evidence into philosophy would openly alter the debate of free will. Cognitive science being that naturalized foundation, and then consider/perform applied philosophical practices... The dull ones - we aren't Greek or Latin anymore gentlemen, lol, some traditions are best left to die - like this question without psychology or neuroscience.

I think the concept of free-will is folly. There is no free-willing-agent. There's tons of agents, all acting upon each other (and with things that are outside of the body as-well) which make up our Will.


(Nested quote removed.)


I strongly disagree. Determinism is understanding that nothing is random in the universe, and everything is decisive, and I think it's greatest quality is that it admits human cannot comprehend, and decipher this reality, truly. Free-will is herd mysticism required by human weakness, one way to cope with this truer observation (one, lowly way of self-delusion.

I think free will is a human mysticism, a natural one. IF anything, those who realized such potential of metaphysical drives... Would be able to manipulate, while feeding this metaphysical drive or these drives. Did they use religion, or did religion develop such fractional thinking? Well, being one who loves the science of the mind... I can tell you religion is a natural condition to man; rituals, doctrines and dogmas - are unconsciously foundational as much as consciously. Check out [cognitive] science of religion - both are relatively new fields. As to my question... Either answer is plausible as much as falsifiable.

The conflict here may be the word religion, but, this is the CoS board - science is just as much a concern as religion, since contemporary philosophers/scientist and theologians alike have created a real debate of 'religion v science' - responding to that reality is essential. Science of religion, religion of science. Ideas are meant to be combined when they are essential to growth and development. The problem is, we attach a lot of meaning to the words used in order to create our objective ideologies. (This paragraph is more of a response in general than to you 'Thatsage'

You should read 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn - you'd really like it. _____ I love this topic, it really gets people thinking...

My range of thinking on this topic can be found here:

http://isthismindmaterial.blogspot.com/ ... -will.html

"I believe there are degrees of free will. I am sure others do too. But, what are the relative factors which increases or decreases an individuals degree of free will?"

Basically, I believe, what Thatsage is thinking.

The thought of Free Will is just a metaphysical desire we all want answered. By being an innate mechanism, or meta-desire, the 'product of certain necessities' are made in response to your biased thinking which is biased depending on the diversity in which you endure, demographically (mimetic v. memetic natures conflicting in order to craft a reality - Fu** up - the ability to be a free will agent, or for free agents to exist). Since this desire of knowledge exist, as a foundation for our 'human drive' to survive and conquer in an anthropocentric attitude... We are subject to this meta-desire. Want to be free? Stop allowing the drive to plasticize your thoughts. Want to stop 'following' the drive? Stop surviving... Free will concerns are normative to our nature, they won't go away, but they need to be expanded significantly; feminist epistemology.

Ultimately, we are more determined than free. However, we are free enough to want to be more free - which, through discipline, one can become more free. But, free does not entail breaking any laws of reality... lol. While we aren't free, with thinking we become more and more free.

Putting serious truth into Aristotle's ideology that happiness is goodness, intellectualism is the negation of evil intention, and secondary happiness (because primary does not exist, necessarily) comes from practical usage of knowledge. In another sense, there is truth that political science is the highest order of thinking.

Perhaps, to add one more thought, free will is a question that should be left to political thinking - which will involve a multidisciplinary attitude, for what is justice is not merely something that can be argued for with semantics, logic and rhetoric - and if it does - that is not good politics or real justice. (I digressed)