Posts

Total: 90
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
My evidence is anecdotal at present and I am not trying to convince you to maintain or abandon any "belief" you have concerning free will.  But as with most things, the truth usually lies between the two extremes (free will and no free will).  That is the crux of my ideas.  
Middle ground fallacy. When the answer is unknown there is no way to say that any particular answer is mor likely including the middle ground between two answers.
My evidence is merely my ability to notice my failings, to analyze them and to reprogram my habits and attitudes to create different output than would otherwise be possible.   This is indirect free will (for me)  --- not trying to change you here.
In this case it sounds as though your failings act as a cause. A catalyst to this reprogramming. If there is a cause then it is demonstrably cause and effect. There is at least cause and effect at work. Can you demonstrate more?
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
In this case it sounds as though your failings act as a cause. A catalyst to this reprogramming. If there is a cause then it is demonstrably cause and effect. There is at least cause and effect at work. Can you demonstrate more?
Well . . . (and it sounds like you at least minored in philosophy and I most certainly did not, but . . .),  In general, everything has a cause.  I'm not speaking of the Universe here, which, for all we know, could be like a beating heart that only "seems" to begin and end as it contracts and expands and therefore has always existed (or it could be finite, in numbers too big for us to fathom).  Or the Universe could be a giant circle  ---  where our lives seem to be straight lines that begin and end, but are merely just a small part of the circle itself, which has always been and will always be, going round and round and round.   :)

But I digress.  Everything has a cause, at least in this universe.  I just don't think "cause" completely negates free will.  Cells are programmed through years of evolution to behave in a certain way.   Once a cell is told to be a liver cell, it has no free will.  It becomes a liver cell.  All the "will" in the world will not make this cell change into a heart cell.  But with genetic manipulation, we can now take a liver cell, starve it of "liver cell" food,  and it will regress to a stem-cell stage.  We can then feed it "heart cell" food and it will become a heart cell.  Evolution programmed the cell.  We "reprogrammed" it.

Life experience and biology program us.  But with our prefrontal cortex we have gained the ability -- not just to play the video game  --  but to reprogram it the way we would rather have it.  It is difficult to wade through and understand someone else's code (ourselves), but it can be done.  I call this partial freewill, because it requires a thorough knowledge of the code (self) and the appropriate skill level (behavioral programming) to accomplish it.  But it still feels like hope and possibility to me.

THIS GOT TOO LONG.  I HAD MORE.  SORRY 'BOUT THAT.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
 it sounds like you at least minored in philosophy 
I am a highschool dropout. My dyslexia was not condusive to higher education in a formal setting. Nevertheless I shall take this as a compliment so thank you.
THIS GOT TOO LONG.  I HAD MORE.  SORRY 'BOUT THAT.
I would prefer to read what else you have to say before responding to your points in full but so far you have at best an action (reprogramming yourself) that is based on a desire (the desire to better oneself in regards to some goal) and since we do not choose our desires it sounds like cause and effect are at least sufficient to explain the process. That means cause and effect is observable and sufficient. I am not prepared to make a black swan fallacy and say that no metaphysical "self" could be contributing in some way but I am prepared to dismiss this self until it is demonstrably and also to dismiss that this self has any free will unless you can demonstrate that cause and effect is not sufficient to explain this self's actions/decisions.
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
and since we do not choose our desires it sounds like cause and effect are at least sufficient to explain the process
Okay.  I am not suggesting that we choose our desires.  I am saying we can reprogram them.  This will be an insufficient example but here goes: 

If every time I am offered a choice of wine, I choose a white zinfandel, then I probably have positive associations going past merely the taste.  I probably associate it with friends and good times.  But let's say, unlike a dog for instance, I notice that I "always" pick the zinfandel.  I can force myself to pick a rose', but that is will and not free will (according to me anyway).

What I can do, is sit down with a rose'; put on music I like; look at pictures of me and my friends laughing; watch a comedy I like and try to associate good things with the rose'.  If I repeat this activity repeatedly throughout the next few months, I might change my "tendency" to always select a zinfandel.  Once I have had more "positive" experiences with the rose', than the zinfandel, I might automatically order it, instead of the zinfandel.  My choice in the moment is still not free will.  But I have changed that choice by re-programming my pre-programmed "desire".

Understand, I'm not in any way excluding cause and effect.   I don't think any action, or thought for that matter, comes without a cause.  I simply believe we can notice the results of our programming and, with work and savvy, change our programming   ---  a thing our animal predecessors cannot.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,251
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@lady3keys
I would suggest that one cannot re-programme.

All that one can do is either expand ones database and therefore modify output, or simply re-organise ones  pre-existing data store.  (Alter ones outlook).......One cannot de-programme and re-programme at will.

I would further suggest that "free will" is at best, conscious effort as opposed to instinctively driven function. 

Social factors that have a bearing on conscious effort might impinge on freedom of expression, but do not necessarily inhibit freedom of thought....Though, nothing other than physiological malfunction will affect instinctively driven function.


Social factors  may  cause you to make alternative decisions (wine) so you  simply modify a pre-existing data programme, (conscious effort or free will)..... Therefore in this instance one can clearly make distinctions between cause and effect, and free will.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
I notice that I "always" pick the zinfandel. 
This is a cause. A catalyst. The reason you are changing your behavior. See the problem is that I don't think you are going to be able to site or even make up an example that doesn't start with a "why I'm doing a thing" and that is a cause. In your scenario you are actually acting on your desire to make a change in your life and you didn't choose to have that desire. Even if you do have an example where you do a thing for no (discernible) reason that only makes your actions (indiscernible) from random.

I cam appreciate your position and goodness knows I'd like to believe in free will but it just isn't supportable given our current evidence and ot would be intellectually dishonest to practice skepticism in every other case but this one.
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
All that one can do is either expand ones database and therefore modify output, or simply re-organise ones  pre-existing data store.  (Alter ones outlook).......One cannot de-programme and re-programme at will.
Depends what you mean by database.  Expanding your database will be meaningless if the programs are not changed to utilize the new fields.  If you meant just expanding the "data" and not the database, then that would only give you more output, not "modify the output".  As for reorganizing the database or data store (a reconfigure), this would cause the programs to crash, since they would refer to data connections that no longer exist or have been changed.  I would think this would make reprogramming  essential.

Social factors  may  cause you to make alternative decisions (wine) so you  simply modify a pre-existing data programme, (conscious effort or free will)..... Therefore in this instance one can clearly make distinctions between cause and effect, and free will.
Not really.  In this example, the "social factors" would be a new "cause".  It would prove only that the cause-and-effect line of bowing to social pressure was stronger than the cause-and-effect line of choosing the wine I preferred.  I would still have no free will.

But I do believe what you were talking about with pre-existing programs.  We are born with basic programs.  As we grow and learn these basic programs are used to build larger and larger networks of programs.  But understanding these programs, means we can use them to our advantage.  Instead of programming, you might call them "scripts".  A script can call any number of pre-existing programs and create complete worlds using just a handful of these.

Our senses, physiological needs and emotions are some of these basic programs.  We may not be able to reprogram our physical (and emotional) need for food, but we can use this "food" program to write our own program (say for using a fork).  We are not born with the need or ability to handle a fork.  But we love to eat.  Our parents teach us how to eat "better" by using the fork.   If, years later, we wanted to use only chopsticks, we could use the need for food, the "food" program to do this.  We might only allow ourselves to eat if we use the chopsticks.

There would still be a cause and effect.  But with the chopsticks, the cause is most predominantly our desire for change.  The reason behind wanting to change is probably the real cause. 
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin

See the problem is that I don't think you are going to be able to site or even make up an example that doesn't start with a "why I'm doing a thing" and that is a cause.
I guess I just don't buy the idea, that just because everything has a "cause", there is no freewill. 

A cause can have many effects and you can't always say that Cause A will create Cause B in the same way every time (radioactive decay).  I do believe though, to a certain extent, that we are like programmed robots.  But at a minimum, I also believe we have been given the ability to understand our source code and change, in part, our programmed identities.   But . . . it really could just all be an illusion.  Science certainly seems to prove that more and more.

HOWEVER, even if we are all just a web of neurons, firing in our own grey matter, there is also this interesting tidbit:       :)
A reporter wrote, "Kathleen Vohs, then at the University of Utah, and Jonathan Schooler, of the University of Pittsburgh said, 'on a range of measures Vohs and Schooler found that “people who are induced to believe less in free will are more likely to behave immorally."   When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers. When given an opportunity to steal—to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins—those whose belief in free will had been undermined pilfered more.'
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
You are talking about the difference between utility and truth. I cannot simply believe something is true because the belief has utility. I must still be genuinely convinced it is true or I will be unable to maintain belief. I am no longer able to participate or partake in the "beautiful lie".
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@lady3keys
It sounds like you're a compatibilist.
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I am no longer able to participate or partake in the "beautiful lie".
Of course not.  I want the truth as well.  I'm just not convinced that it is ALL a lie.  It might be.  But for me, the jury is still out.   
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Castin
It sounds like you're a compatibilist.
I guess I am.  But I have to say, I hate the sound of that word.  It reminds me an awful lot of the word "conformist".  But by definition alone, I think you're right.  I am a compatibilist. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
If you could demonstrate some logical alternatives to cause and effect or indistinguishable from random I really would like to hear them. I truly would like to believe in free will. It is just logically inconsistent with the reality in which I find myself.

Even if I go as far as saying "the jury is still out" I would still have to dismiss the undemontrated proposition of free will for exactly the same reason that I dismiss undemonstrated supernatural claims. Skepticism is the default. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,251
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@lady3keys
Yep. Crazy brain stuff....And I wouldn't suggest for one minute that I understand how memory (database) actually works, or how the brain separates functional data (instinct) from acquired data.

Though as I see it....Cause and effect are......The difference between function and non-function....So the inevitable precursor to decision making.

Making decisions....Conscious effort (effect) stimulated by cause....Decisions by definition allow for choice (free will).

Social factors...Data input (cause) may influence your decision, though you are still free to choose....Alternative data output options/ modification of data store.

Though, can we differentiate between cause and influence?....I would say that cause (social factor) is an external stimulus (perception), whereas influence is an internally generated effect.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys
About the word "FREE".  I would like to think that "Caused Events" are a little more complex than simply "free or not-free" (boolean).
It is complex.  Very complex.

Yet there remains at every single juncture, a very strict (CAUSE) OR (NO CAUSE) point of contact.

It is true that we can observe and to some degree change our behavior patterns.

However, our ability to change those patterns is still constrained by our biology and our environment.

Most people like to believe that they are caused (consider historical data) when making a decision, or setting a goal, but then there's a tiny bit of magic that happens on top of all that careful consideration that spices up our result with indeterminism.

And this is a perfectly reasonable belief (unfalsifiable) but it is important to remember that indeterminism is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM.

If you believe the "you" that makes "you" special and unique is this part of your decision making process that breaks concrete "cause-and-effect" then you must believe that the special "you" that makes "you" "you" is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Castin
All right, he's making me almost tempted to sign up to Hive now just to jump in this.
Let me know if you sign-up (it's free) and I'll delegate some stake to you to get you started.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though, can we differentiate between cause and influence?....I would say that cause (social factor) is an external stimulus (perception), whereas influence is an internally generated effect.
And of course "internally generated" is a pretty arbitrary distinction, since you're not truly "self-caused" and you're never truly "isolated".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
...for exactly the same reason that I dismiss undemonstrated supernatural claims. Skepticism is the default. 
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys
...the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers.
Belief in judgmental gods also CAUSES (some) people to act more honestly.

I'm not convinced that counts as EVIDENCE supporting the truth-value of such a claim.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys

Depends what you mean by database.  Expanding your database will be meaningless if the programs are not changed to utilize the new fields.  If you meant just expanding the "data" and not the database, then that would only give you more output, not "modify the output".  As for reorganizing the database or data store (a reconfigure), this would cause the programs to crash, since they would refer to data connections that no longer exist or have been changed.  I would think this would make reprogramming  essential.
Good example.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys
We are born with basic programs.  As we grow and learn these basic programs are used to build larger and larger networks of programs.  But understanding these programs, means we can use them to our advantage.  Instead of programming, you might call them "scripts".  A script can call any number of pre-existing programs and create complete worlds using just a handful of these.
Our biology is hardware.

Our formative experience is firmware (and OS).

Our conscious adult decision framework is software.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys
But we can decide to change a bad habit and provide the reinforcement ourselves.
(IFF) we encounter a REASON to modify our models and or behavior (THEN) we can explore (available) options to produce a "more favorable" result
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Middle ground fallacy. When the answer is unknown there is no way to say that any particular answer is mor likely including the middle ground between two answers.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys
Life experience and biology program us.  But with our prefrontal cortex we have gained the ability -- not just to play the video game  --  but to reprogram it the way we would rather have it.  It is difficult to wade through and understand someone else's code (ourselves), but it can be done.  I call this partial freewill, because it requires a thorough knowledge of the code (self) and the appropriate skill level (behavioral programming) to accomplish it.  But it still feels like hope and possibility to me.
Well stated.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not prepared to make a black swan fallacy and say that no metaphysical "self" could be contributing in some way but I am prepared to dismiss this self until it is demonstrably and also to dismiss that this self has any free will unless you can demonstrate that cause and effect is not sufficient to explain this self's actions/decisions.
Even a "metaphysical self" is (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (indistinguishable from random).

Ghosts, gods, spirits, angels, unicorns, and mechanical inter-dimensional elves are ALL (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (indistinguishable from random).

And furthermore, if our "true" "will" comes from "beyond the physical", then we are merely "god puppets" which still doesn't bode well for (any version of) the "freewill" hypothesis.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@lady3keys
What I can do, is sit down with a rose'; put on music I like; look at pictures of me and my friends laughing; watch a comedy I like and try to associate good things with the rose'.  If I repeat this activity repeatedly throughout the next few months, I might change my "tendency" to always select a zinfandel.  Once I have had more "positive" experiences with the rose', than the zinfandel, I might automatically order it, instead of the zinfandel.  My choice in the moment is still not free will.  But I have changed that choice by re-programming my pre-programmed "desire".

Understand, I'm not in any way excluding cause and effect.   I don't think any action, or thought for that matter, comes without a cause.  I simply believe we can notice the results of our programming and, with work and savvy, change our programming   ---  a thing our animal predecessors cannot.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I would further suggest that "free will" is at best, conscious effort as opposed to instinctively driven function. 
Will is conscious effort.

Magical "freewill" is something else entirely.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
One cannot de-programme and re-programme at will.
Although there are some pretty well documented techniques that can provide something resembling a "firmware update".

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Castin
So, here's my question.
Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is real?
Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is fake?
Are you suggesting that both positions require equal "faith"?
^ He never did directly answer this question of yours, did he?
Well, I think I convinced them on the A-gnostic = NOT a GNOSTIC proposition, so I'm marking it as a "win".
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not prepared to make a black swan fallacy and say that no metaphysical "self" could be contributing in some way but I am prepared to dismiss this self until it is demonstrably and also to dismiss that this self has any free will unless you can demonstrate that cause and effect is not sufficient to explain this self's actions/decisions.
Even a "metaphysical self" is (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (indistinguishable from random).

Ghosts, gods, spirits, angels, unicorns, and mechanical inter-dimensional elves are ALL (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused (indistinguishable from random).

And furthermore, if our "true" "will" comes from "beyond the physical", then we are merely "god puppets" which still doesn't bode well for (any version of) the "freewill" hypothesis.
I do not for my part disagree.