Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Magmacube_tr]

Whenever I hear neurologists go on about how "free will" is a lie, I cringe.

I think there is a genuine disconnect between academia related to this topic and the reality of the situation. Academia is hard-set on putting stuff in neat little boxes. While the brain and consciousness simply doesn't works that way.

Like, playing a piano is a conscious act, right? But does the pianist calculate each and every push of a key? No. It happens automatically. But the pianist is aware of the movement, the song, and the act itself, and can stop at any moment they desire. After that, they can consciously push keys individually.

Like everything about humans, consciousness is fluid. It shifts, ascends and descends levels. It might be there for one process before vacating somewhere else right after. It moves constantly, and exists in a spectrum.

There was a stupid study where some idiot tried to measure the existence of free will by reflexive actions and concluded that it didn't existed. Yea, dumb right?

But the real problem is that the other studies are like, a notch above that one. They measure conscious finger movements, instead of reflexive ones. Then they see the neural lag of the cerebellum and the person synching -the slow rise they are talking about- and conclude that free will doesn't exists. I think you are beginning to see the problem.

There seems to be a very strong inclination among neurologists to test free will with  these very minuscule things that doesn't tell anything about the  workings of higher brain functions. Surprise, even a planarian can consciously move when presented with stimuli. It's as if neurologists just don't have actual conscious agency on what they are doing, and that they are trapped in this vicious cycle of conducting inadequate experiments on the nature of will because they don't have free will.

There is also the problem of trying to meaningfully measure a concept that is so nebulous, that no one has a full and satisfactory definition of it.

All things aside, I think it is simply impossible to measure something that is just a non-real concept.

[MaxTheFox]

I think measuring "free will" is a fool's errand. It's a philosophical concept not a physical one.

[dragdeler]

All things aside, I think it is simply impossible to measure something that is just a non-real concept.

At least you came this far, if can't prove something we err on the side of it doesn't exist tho. The point being that sure, you can execute on your desires, but how much can you actually will yourself to want something else than you wanted? Much like with people with such weak sense of ethics that they argue that a collection of stories from the bronze age is required to be able to orient their actions: the falsifiability is needed to knock the hybris down a few pegs, it's simony thats what it actually is. If people are free to alter their will to any extent at any time, they sure make damn poor use of it.

If you don't like the methodology of neurology, and despise arthur schoppenhauer as well, then think of it like this: much like a LLM forms it's sentences, the previous words decide what the next words can be, the next words can not be litterally anything, they are bound by (statistical in this case) rules.

[McTraveller]

I have wondered about those studies... why do they make a distinction between whatever mechanism is preceding the "cortex recognition" as meaning it's not a decision? What if the pre-cortex function is what is making the decision, and the cortex is just "putting words to it"?

Doesn't matter if it's after the fact - that initial "decision" process is still a decision, and that mechanism could be considered to be the one making the "decision" "freely".  That is, the pre-cortex thing is really "you", and your cortex is an observer on it.  Just like if a person makes a decision, and some other person observes it and describes it.

Sure this is perhaps "turtles all the way down", but to me it's a false distinction: that initial decision-making mechanism made it "freely" did it not?

<NOTE: This is indeed all just the physical mechanics part of the discussion. Not even trying to get into the potentially spiritual "mechanics" of it.>

[dragdeler]

People are really emotionally invested in the idea that they are redacting novels in their head, it's more like they are filling out a QCM.

[Strongpoint]

My opinion on the free will solidified quite a long time ago. My thoughts\actions are either caused by something and that means no free will. Or my thoughts\actions have no cause aka they are random and that also means no free will. Existence of god(s), soul, afterlife, etc changes nothing.

[MaxTheFox]

My opinion on the free will solidified quite a long time ago. My thoughts\actions are either caused by something and that means no free will. Or my thoughts\actions have no cause aka they are random and that also means no free will. Existence of god(s), soul, afterlife, etc changes nothing.

What even is free will.

These discussions always come down to "what the fuck even is free will". It's inherently a vague concept.

[dragdeler]

I think in french it's much better: "libre arbitre" (does it require translation? we know the roots as englishspeakers)... english and german suck in these regards using a noun that is also a verb that's also an auxilliary to plenty other words.

[Egan_BW]

People, as machines which are quite obviously made to be able to make decisions, are able to make decisions. Wow!


I think that part of the issue is that while people can't really define what something non-deterministic and non-random would look like, they feel trapped by both ideas. To which I say the solution is to use your free will to not feel trapped. Just because you're the product of your surroundings (and a small amount of random chance) doesn't mean that you're not you and that you can't use those feelings to change yourself, and thus the decisions you make.

[Eschar]

mind-body dualism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. in this essay,

[MaxTheFox]

I dunno if we should free Will. The guy probably did something pretty bad if so many people want to fire at him.

[Frumple]

Wish I could remember which fallacy that is, heh, 'cause it's definitely one of the proper named ones.

Like, I get the joke but sweet hell the amount of evil that's been inflicted over the years from that sentiment is not small.

[Rolan7]

I just found out that tomorrow's the solstice!  I'm going to do a short nature walk in appreciation.  I think the day holds special significance in Wicca?

Or it's just the closest significant date to Christmas, so it's a good excuse to join in the holidays.  Which isn't really a coincidence...  This time of year is special to a lot of diverse groups, and that's cool.

Anyway, I hope everyone finds some happiness this holiday season.

Holy carp, 8 years ago??  I didn't think the last thread-change was that long ago...
Well, I still feel the same way   The solstice is almost over for me, but I hope all of us in the northern hemisphere enjoy the sunlight returning.  Hmm... makes me want to rewatch Legend, actually.
I've been meaning to do that anyway... it has some serious Gender in it...

Take care, y'all <3

[Loud Whispers]

You too Rolan

[McTraveller]

Without Christ, it would just be Mas.