Free Will (hint: you don't got it)

I get a free will if I participate in my employer's contributory life insurance policy, so I do got it. As such, your argument is moot.

Metro, I understand your idea fully, and it is an interesting one.

For the plebes, I'll try to dumb it down:

If our "minds" are simply the electricity and chemicals that are being manipulated by our physical brains, then there is no such thing as free will because everything happening in our minds is, on some level, tangible, and therefore affected by some other tangible force (be it evolution, gravity, etc.). Therfore - no free will.

The issue here metro is that you are assuming that scientists have accounted for everything that happens in the human brain; that the entirety of cognition has been quantified. This is not true. There is still a lot of mystery.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Proof by induction???

To use any kind of logic, in science or philosophy, you have to start with a premise, a foundation, and work from there.

My premise is that there are deterministic or random physical laws that govern the world. This is "proven" by empirical science. The other premise I am using is that the brain is a physical thing.

Your premise, apparently (you still haven't stated what your premise is), is that either or both:
a) The physical world is not deterministic (so, you are denying physics?)
b) The brain is not purely physical, that we have a "soul" which is not governed by laws we understand. Fair enough.

However, as George Berkeley said to disprove the skeptics: "I have two hands, so clearly a physical world exists", his founding premise is infinitely more likely and believable than the one that the world is nonexistent and only our perceptions exist.

Similarly, in this case I find it highly more likely that my starting premise of physical laws (that have been proven, if only empirically) exist is true than yours of claiming some things (undefined, unspecified) are not governed by physical laws (with no evidence or reasoning except that it is your opinion).

Neither is provable, but I just don't see where your argument is. Again, are you saying the brain is something more than physical? If so, just say it. That's fine. But you aren't really putting a stake in the ground here.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

Thomas, you are focusing on the practical idea of free will. Yes, we all think we have free will, even me, the skeptic. I still live life as if I have free will. After all, I'm just talking about theory. While I agree that everything in your post reflects how one should live practically, nothing in it actually touches the theoretical topic at hand. That is, scientifically, what is your defense of free will? More specifically, what in my argument (or "thought" as Matt prefers to define it as), is faulty?
You did not present a scientific argument, just a jump in logic. You obviously don't know **** about either physics or philosophy. I understand the thought you had but for now, as Iammatt pointed out, its just a thought not an argument. There is nothing to refute because nothing was proposed. BTW both Mantan and Mafoo are into very specific philosophical currents and not practitioners at large. I guess you could say the same for me.

Originally Posted by hamish5178

Click to expand...

Metro, I understand your idea fully, and it is an interesting one.

For the plebes, I'll try to dumb it down:

If our "minds" are simply the electricity and chemicals that are being manipulated by our physical brains, then there is no such thing as free will because everything happening in our minds is, on some level, tangible, and therefore affected by some other tangible force (be it evolution, gravity, etc.). Therfore - no free will.

The issue here metro is that you are assuming that scientists have accounted for everything that happens in the human brain; that the entirety of cognition has been quantified. This is not true. There is still a lot of mystery.

Thanks, finally someone taking a side rationally. I totally agree with your statement. I am just saying that it would be interesting to hear a viewpoint PRO-free will assuming current physics are correct and not missing an understanding of some kind of human/psychological/soul ether or separate rules governing that.

Otherwise the conversation breaks down into "either we understand the mind or we are missing something very important". Which is a good point, but one that can't really be argued to any length.

I guess what I want to say is, is that the tenet on which everyone who believes in free will is basing their opinion? That is more than fair. If not, I'd like to hear the other reasons as well.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

You did not present a scientific argument, just a jump in logic.

It's a logical argument based on existing science. If A -> B -> C, and A and B are true, then C is true.

A = laws of physics are understood correctly and we are not missing something big that explains some non-physical nature of the mind (a supposition, I admit!)
B = The brain is governed by laws of physics
C = The brain is deterministic/random, as you wish.

Care to make a positive point instead of hating as usual?

I suppose that would be what I base my conception of free will on. Question: 5 or 6? I pick five. You, or any scientist in the world has no way of finding out why, even if you could travel through time and view my mind as I made the decision, it's a mystery, I don't even know what's wrong with six.

Are you looking for a scientific or metaphysical argument for the existence of the freedom of the will?

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

To use any kind of logic, in science or philosophy, you have to start with a premise, a foundation, and work from there.

My premise is that there are deterministic or random physical laws that govern the world. This is "proven" by empirical science. The other premise I am using is that the brain is a physical thing.

Your premise, apparently (you still haven't stated what your premise is), is that either or both:
a) The physical world is not deterministic (so, you are denying physics?)
b) The brain is not purely physical, that we have a "soul" which is not governed by laws we understand. Fair enough.

However, as George Berkeley said to disprove the skeptics: "I have two hands, so clearly a physical world exists", his founding premise is infinitely more likely and believable than the one that the world is nonexistent and only our perceptions exist.

Similarly, in this case I find it highly more likely that my starting premise of physical laws (that have been proven, if only empirically) exist is true than yours of claiming some things (undefined, unspecified) are not governed by physical laws (with no evidence or reasoning except that it is your opinion).

Neither is provable, but I just don't see where your argument is. Again, are you saying the brain is something more than physical? If so, just say it. That's fine. But you aren't really putting a stake in the ground here.

I don't have a position, or an argument as such. My feeling about the matter is that there are a lot of complex reactions and issues with brain chemistry that we have not begun to comprehend, so I am not willing to assume away all possibilities.

You are right that you have to start with a premise and deduce from there, but the conclusion is only as strong as the logic is good and the premise is widely accepted. The second fails, so the conclusion is worthless to anybody but yourself.

FWIW, I have no belief in god, monsters or souls, so...

Originally Posted by hamish5178

Click to expand...

I suppose that would be what I base my conception of free will on.

Question: 5 or 6?

I pick five. You, or any scientist in the world has no way of finding out why, even if you could travel through time and view my mind as I made the decision, it's a mystery, I don't even know what's wrong with six.

Totally agreement here. I'm not saying anyone can predict your actions, but that your actions are deterministic, even if on a scale that we humans would never consider truly deterministic at all because of its complexity. But I know that you know what I'm saying, because you seem like a smart guy.

Originally Posted by Valor

Click to expand...

Are you looking for a scientific or metaphysical argument for the existence of the freedom of the will?

Either or, but a scientific one is more interesting. Mostly because I don't know the latest science on the issue.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

I don't have a position, or an argument as such. My feeling about the matter is that there are a lot of complex reactions and issues with brain chemistry that we have not begun to comprehend, so I am not willing to assume away all possibilities.

You are right that you have to start with a premise and deduce from there, but the conclusion is only as strong as the logic is good and the premise is widely accepted. The second fails, so the conclusion is worthless to anybody but yourself.

FWIW, I have no belief in god, monsters or souls, so...

Alright, that's fair. So you are basing your opinion on the idea that we do not fully understand the brain, and as such, we can not definitively say that the brain's behavior is fully based on deterministic physical processes.

Duly noted, and that is just as fair an argument (or whatever you nitpickers want to call it, jesus) as mine. Just wanted to be clear what you were basing your opinion on.

It is also worth noting that since it is theoretically possible for matter to spontaneously appear and dissapear, move through other matter, etc. it will never really be plausible to track these things down to their smallest level.

Also, I think I may have fallen into a Kantian trap (my most despised philosopher) by assuming that there are certainties about the physical world. Noooooooooooo!

Why is Style Forum particularly prone to threads like "Prove or disprove for me something that the world's greatest philosophers have been unable to resolve for 2,500 years"? Or, my personal favorite, "I have solved problem X which eluded every great mind from Socrates to Heidegger!"

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

It's a logical argument based on existing science. If A -> B -> C, and A and B are true, then C is true.

A = laws of physics are understood correctly and we are not missing something big that explains some non-physical nature of the mind (a supposition, I admit!)
B = The brain is governed by laws of physics
C = The brain is deterministic/random, as you wish.

Care to make a positive point instead of hating as usual?

Here is my positive point.

1) The laws of physics are not integrated. They don't answer anything about determinism.
C= whatever I wish it to be it doesn't matter...