The meaning of life. Deep Down.

[Speakpigeon]

What we need to do to stay alive and procreate is our purpose.

First, most of the time, what you need to do won't be a purpose for you.

Second, what you need to do to achieve something else, first is usually not a purpose for you, and second, it's the means to achieve this something else, which may be then your purpose, although maybe not.

As I see it, purpose is intentional and voluntary. It's a choice. A purpose is something you're intent on achieving, whether 'in life', or within some shorter period of time and may indeed be perfectly trivial like to say hello to your neighbour. Crucial to the notion of purpose is the fact that people will go to greater lengths to achieve their purpose than to do most other things. Very often your purpose may be something like "to have sex urgently" and many people in this situation may well not have the purpose of "procreating" or "reproducing themselves", even though having sex will often enough result in just that. People will reproduce anyway even without having the purpose of reproducing themselves. If you do something you would rather not do, it's not a purpose for you. If you're forced to do something then doing it becomes the means to stay out of trouble. And then, staying out of trouble will be your immediate purpose.

Of course, talking of 'purpose' in the case of genes and things without a mind is therefore a mistake.
EB

 

[rousseau]

It seems like you're smuggling in "and procreate" there, when it actually doesn't fit your gun-to-the-head analogy very well. Many people survive their whole lives without procreating (arguably, most people who have ever lived managed to do this). What I'm trying to say is that we don't need to view procreation as anything nearly as urgent a 'purpose' as our survival as individual organisms. Genes do not actually care if they are replicated or not. Life has no interest in continuing itself across the generations. Natural selection makes it appear otherwise, but there is really no purpose to be found at any level below complex brains.

No, it's critical. But humanity isn't a bunch of individuals. It's a collective. One human in the world is a soon dead human. It doesn't matter how hard he or she works at life, that's the end of it. Which defeats the point of doing anything. That human might as well quit trying to stay alive and try to find a higher meaning. I think this is the deeper truth that religions have figured out.

I'd also argue that we're inherently a social species. Anything we do that brings us joy we do for the recognition of some collective or another. Or love and recognition from an individual. Ask any old geezer. What people value the most from their lives is shared experiences.

Gotta disagree with you there.

Maybe it won't score a lot of spiritual points, but people are biologically oriented to find satisfaction in doing things. Try sitting in a room doing nothing but meditating for a couple months. I suspect you'll mostly just find yourself bored and unsatisfied.

It doesn't get spiritual points because the process is essentially a chemical reaction, but I'd argue that the day to day parts of life are just as meaningful for us as anything we'd define as a higher purpose. If we didn't like working toward a career, having children, and even doing day to day chores like groceries and tidying up, then life would be so unbearable that everyone would just end their life.

But that's not the case, life is only unbearable for people when they're clinically depressed. Most healthy individuals glean a sense of satisfaction from most parts of their life, because that's how the brain works.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What we need to do to stay alive and procreate is our purpose.

First, most of the time, what you need to do won't be a purpose for you.

Second, what you need to do to achieve something else, first is usually not a purpose for you, and second, it's the means to achieve this something else, which may be then your purpose, although maybe not.

As I see it, purpose is intentional and voluntary. It's a choice. A purpose is something you're intent on achieving, whether 'in life', or within some shorter period of time and may indeed be perfectly trivial like to say hello to your neighbour. Crucial to the notion of purpose is the fact that people will go to greater lengths to achieve their purpose than to do most other things. Very often your purpose may be something like "to have sex urgently" and many people in this situation may well not have the purpose of "procreating" or "reproducing themselves", even though having sex will often enough result in just that. People will reproduce anyway even without having the purpose of reproducing themselves. If you do something you would rather not do, it's not a purpose for you. If you're forced to do something then doing it becomes the means to stay out of trouble. And then, staying out of trouble will be your immediate purpose.

Of course, talking of 'purpose' in the case of genes and things without a mind is therefore a mistake.
EB

But now you've just sidled into the free will debate. What does it mean to chose? What does it mean to want something? What is free? From what is it free? If we can't control what we want, how can we be free? You're treating all these as self evident. BTW, don't bother answering them. It's not interesting questions to either ask or answer.

I'd argue that you've said nothing. Everything we do can be seen as intentional and voluntary, or done under duress. Do you eat because you love good food, or because otherwise you'd starve? Wouldn't it be nicer not to have to eat at all?

Humans just do shit, for whatever reason. Why they do them is uninteresting. It's all results from genetic programming, in one way or another. What matters isn't how freely we chose to take the actions, but our attitudes towards them. How they make us feel. Which, incidentally, is also down to genetic programming.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it's critical. But humanity isn't a bunch of individuals. It's a collective. One human in the world is a soon dead human. It doesn't matter how hard he or she works at life, that's the end of it. Which defeats the point of doing anything. That human might as well quit trying to stay alive and try to find a higher meaning. I think this is the deeper truth that religions have figured out.

I'd also argue that we're inherently a social species. Anything we do that brings us joy we do for the recognition of some collective or another. Or love and recognition from an individual. Ask any old geezer. What people value the most from their lives is shared experiences.

Gotta disagree with you there.

Maybe it won't score a lot of spiritual points, but people are biologically oriented to find satisfaction in doing things. Try sitting in a room doing nothing but meditating for a couple months. I suspect you'll mostly just find yourself bored and unsatisfied.

It doesn't get spiritual points because the process is essentially a chemical reaction, but I'd argue that the day to day parts of life are just as meaningful for us as anything we'd define as a higher purpose. If we didn't like working toward a career, having children, and even doing day to day chores like groceries and tidying up, then life would be so unbearable that everyone would just end their life.

But that's not the case, life is only unbearable for people when they're clinically depressed. Most healthy individuals glean a sense of satisfaction from most parts of their life, because that's how the brain works.

I did once meditate for ten days straight, does that count? Having the ability to gain a sense of satisfaction from doing mundane tasks all day is what Buddha defined as a state of enlightenment. Or my understanding of the term. The reason I bring it up, is because it's hard.

People make the ideas of meaning, enlightenment and spirituality unnecessarily complicated.

The ego driven mind is basically competing against the entire world, including nature. If they don't win they'll be frustrated. If they win they just find the next thing to compete against. The state of mind for a person like that is perpetual frustration. That's also life for most people.

Successful athletes aren't ego driven. They don't really care about winning. They care about finding enjoyment in the training. That's the only way you'll truly get good at anything. Of course they also care about winning. But if that is all you care about 99% of your life will be meaningless. Just empty transport. That is truly a hellish existence. The same can be applied to anything in life. Anybody truly good at anything is extremely humble about it.

People who get their sense of worth and value from winning and dominating, don't. This is basically the only thing all spiritual teachers in the world keep repeating over and over in different ways. That sums up the core message (the interesting bit) in all religions. Anyway... that's what I've learned from life. Ohm..... [insert chakra chrystal of your choice]

 

[Speakpigeon]

First, most of the time, what you need to do won't be a purpose for you.

Second, what you need to do to achieve something else, first is usually not a purpose for you, and second, it's the means to achieve this something else, which may be then your purpose, although maybe not.

As I see it, purpose is intentional and voluntary. It's a choice. A purpose is something you're intent on achieving, whether 'in life', or within some shorter period of time and may indeed be perfectly trivial like to say hello to your neighbour. Crucial to the notion of purpose is the fact that people will go to greater lengths to achieve their purpose than to do most other things. Very often your purpose may be something like "to have sex urgently" and many people in this situation may well not have the purpose of "procreating" or "reproducing themselves", even though having sex will often enough result in just that. People will reproduce anyway even without having the purpose of reproducing themselves. If you do something you would rather not do, it's not a purpose for you. If you're forced to do something then doing it becomes the means to stay out of trouble. And then, staying out of trouble will be your immediate purpose.

Of course, talking of 'purpose' in the case of genes and things without a mind is therefore a mistake.
EB

But now you've just sidled into the free will debate. What does it mean to chose? What does it mean to want something? What is free? From what is it free? If we can't control what we want, how can we be free? You're treating all these as self evident. BTW, don't bother answering them. It's not interesting questions to either ask or answer.

I'd argue that you've said nothing. Everything we do can be seen as intentional and voluntary, or done under duress. Do you eat because you love good food, or because otherwise you'd starve? Wouldn't it be nicer not to have to eat at all?

Humans just do shit, for whatever reason. Why they do them is uninteresting. It's all results from genetic programming, in one way or another. What matters isn't how freely we chose to take the actions, but our attitudes towards them. How they make us feel. Which, incidentally, is also down to genetic programming.

If we want to decide whether a human being has free will, the first thing to do is define what we take to be a human being. So, me, I start with what we ordinarily call a human being, based on our everyday experience of dealing with particular instances of human beings. My understanding of free will is based on that, not on some religiously idealistic or scientifically abstract notion of human beings and free will. It's based on concrete examples of human beings and what they do. So, I won't be interested in why or how a human being is created or is allowed to function the way it does. And then I consider the notion of free will as a pragmatic characterisation of the interactions between human beings.

Once this is clarified, it's really easy to settle on a view about free will. What is it that a human being can do that a cow or a stone cannot? Sure, a stone does things, like weighing on whatever it is that it rests upon. Things like that, but not very interesting. Cows are marginally more interesting but not to the point that we would want to discuss cows and what they do all day long. Compare with human beings and what they can do. I can move my arms, shout, decide to go to bed early or late for whatever reason, eat something, write a poem, organise for the overthrow of the dictator, choose who I will vote for at the next election, whatever, but it's sure a long litany of things and my guess is that most humans are similarly gifted. That's free will. Just because they want to, human beings can do many things stones and cows can't. And, most of what people want to talk about all day long is mostly about this sort of things.

Now the fallacy is to deny we have free will on the ground that whatever we do and whatever we want to do is determined, even perhaps pre-determined, by the past and the laws of physics. It's a fallacy because free will is a concept that human beings have created and are using to say something important about their relations to each other, not about their relation to the fundamental laws of the reality we are necessarily a part of. Denying free will is as idiotic as denying we can talk sensibly about being sad or happy, interested or bored, feeling strong or low, in love or repulsed. I will guess that the notion of free will so denied is just a pathetic excuse for repeating again and again the hardcore materialist mantra. This notion is absurd to begin with because claiming absolute free will would be tantamount to claiming that human beings are as many gods. What reasonable people do instead is ask themselves what we really mean by free will and clearly most people won't want to mean something absurd.

Now, you're free to pick your fight. Or perhaps not.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So if we start from the perspective of the cow we get cow free will from it's ability to readily digest grasses to produce protein which no man can do. Is it as simple as that?

 

[Speakpigeon]

So if we start from the perspective of the cow we get cow free will from it's ability to readily digest grasses to produce protein which no man can do. Is it as simple as that?

Yes, it is. Exactly so. You're not letting me down, here. Bravo!

Yet, it's also a fact that we're not much interested in cows' free will because it is so much more restricted than our own. I guess it is as simple as saying we will be more interested in the rich and complex life humans can live than in the kind of repetitive and boring life cows invariably live and cannot escape from. We even watch films, fictional accounts of the life events of mostly fictional characters, which suggests we don't have enough of the real stuff and we use our imagination to expand our representation of ourselves beyond what our personal experience says about ourselves.

Even knowing, as we now do I guess, that humans are nothing more than biological organisms, and our brain is nothing more than an organic calculator (something I have personally believed since I started to think for myself a long time ago), even if it's still the best on this planet, we just keep enjoying being ourselves as if we knew we've been specially designed and created by God in person. We know we're not God, but we often feel just as if we were bright angels, although, maybe, often enough, we can feel like shit. So talk of the vacuity of the notion of free will on the ground that we're essentially organic machines fails. People can and do enjoy something they experience as free will in the sense I've explained, and you can't remove that because it's the real situation: people enjoy free will in just the sense I've explained.
EB

 

[OLDMAN]

So if we start from the perspective of the cow we get cow free will from it's ability to readily digest grasses to produce protein which no man can do. Is it as simple as that?

Yes, it is. Exactly so. You're not letting me down, here. Bravo!

Yet, it's also a fact that we're not much interested in cows' free will because it is so much more restricted than our own. I guess it is as simple as saying we will be more interested in the rich and complex life humans can live than in the kind of repetitive and boring life cows invariably live and cannot escape from. We even watch films, fictional accounts of the life events of mostly fictional characters, which suggests we don't have enough of the real stuff and we use our imagination to expand our representation of ourselves beyond what our personal experience says about ourselves.

Even knowing, as we now do I guess, that humans are nothing more than biological organisms, and our brain is nothing more than an organic calculator (something I have personally believed since I started to think for myself a long time ago), even if it's still the best on this planet, we just keep enjoying being ourselves as if we knew we've been specially designed and created by God in person. We know we're not God, but we often feel just as if we were bright angels, although, maybe, often enough, we can feel like shit. So talk of the vacuity of the notion of free will on the ground that we're essentially organic machines fails. People can and do enjoy something they experience as free will in the sense I've explained, and you can't remove that because it's the real situation: people enjoy free will in just the sense I've explained.
EB

An insect shows us that free will is an illusion. Unless you can have free will without a conscious brain?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, it is. Exactly so. You're not letting me down, here. Bravo!

Yet, it's also a fact that we're not much interested in cows' free will because it is so much more restricted than our own. I guess it is as simple as saying we will be more interested in the rich and complex life humans can live than in the kind of repetitive and boring life cows invariably live and cannot escape from. We even watch films, fictional accounts of the life events of mostly fictional characters, which suggests we don't have enough of the real stuff and we use our imagination to expand our representation of ourselves beyond what our personal experience says about ourselves.

Even knowing, as we now do I guess, that humans are nothing more than biological organisms, and our brain is nothing more than an organic calculator (something I have personally believed since I started to think for myself a long time ago), even if it's still the best on this planet, we just keep enjoying being ourselves as if we knew we've been specially designed and created by God in person. We know we're not God, but we often feel just as if we were bright angels, although, maybe, often enough, we can feel like shit. So talk of the vacuity of the notion of free will on the ground that we're essentially organic machines fails. People can and do enjoy something they experience as free will in the sense I've explained, and you can't remove that because it's the real situation: people enjoy free will in just the sense I've explained.
EB

An insect shows us that free will is an illusion. Unless you can have free will without a conscious brain?

It's not as if you had tried to understand what I say.

Also, it's a trivial observation that we wouldn't know if insects were (subjectively) conscious.

In fact, we don't actually know that other people are (subjectively) conscious. We just infer that they are from what we can observe of them, which is what I call 'objective consciousness', i.e. the kind of cognitive capabilities we routinely infer other people seem to have on the basis of our observation of certain objective facts pertaining to them, such as their ability to navigate their environment, to sustain a sensible conversation, to recall events from yesterday etc. Now, insects clearly possess some degree of objective consciousness. They can navigate their environment, communicate with insects of the same species, find their food, find a mate to reproduce etc. Clearly, there's a gradation in the level of consciousness different organisms seem to have. So, we may choose not to infer subjective consciousness from the level of objective consciousness insects have but it would be just as legitimate to do it. Human beings' level of consciousness seems obviously supreme but we've also become more open during the last few decades to the idea that the great apes and dolphins for example must have a degree of subjective consciousness. Personally, I remain open to the idea that little bugs may have a modicum of subjective consciousness.

I will guess that if you could specify what you mean by 'consciousness' without ambiguity, we would see we're not talking about the same thing. Which is what we're already doing apparently with free will. And then why did you comment on my post to being with? Sounds more like drive-by posting than any genuine attempt at having a conversation. Which suggests a relatively low level of consciousness, on both aspects.
EB

 

[OLDMAN]

Sorry, but methinks you prefer to dance instead of talk. Consciousness (to me) is nothing more than an awareness of ones surroundings. Even plants (using a different system) can be said to respond to their surroundings. But it is the system that gives them that ability and not grey matter. Insects use another system but there is no self awareness, so while they give off the illusion of free will. ( eg: moving when they want to, etc.) it is simply instinct that rules the day.

I won't go into all the examples of why free will doesn't exist in humans, the evidence is almost overwhelming, but keep your beliefs and enjoy your dance.

 

[George S]

Sorry, but methinks you prefer to dance instead of talk. Consciousness (to me) is nothing more than an awareness of ones surroundings. Even plants (using a different system) can be said to respond to their surroundings. But it is the system that gives them that ability and not grey matter. Insects use another system but there is no self awareness, so while they give off the illusion of free will. ( eg: moving when they want to, etc.) it is simply instinct that rules the day.

I won't go into all the examples of why free will doesn't exist in humans, the evidence is almost overwhelming, but keep your beliefs and enjoy your dance.

It all depends on the definition of free will.

The free will that I believe exists is this. It is possible for the human (and no doubt many other animals) to imagine futures. In some the human is a character in the imagined scene. Different futures may be imagined and a choice of future actions by that imagined self decided. Not all imagined choices will play out as imagined. (The best laid plans o' mice and men aft gang aglee.)

Will is as free as imagine is free. But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Effective will must take reality into account.

If insects imagine different futures in which they themselves play a part and can choose from different imagined scenarios, I would say they have free will.

 

[rousseau]

Sorry, but methinks you prefer to dance instead of talk. Consciousness (to me) is nothing more than an awareness of ones surroundings. Even plants (using a different system) can be said to respond to their surroundings. But it is the system that gives them that ability and not grey matter. Insects use another system but there is no self awareness, so while they give off the illusion of free will. ( eg: moving when they want to, etc.) it is simply instinct that rules the day.

I won't go into all the examples of why free will doesn't exist in humans, the evidence is almost overwhelming, but keep your beliefs and enjoy your dance.

It all depends on the definition of free will.

The free will that I believe exists is this. It is possible for the human (and no doubt many other animals) to imagine futures. In some the human is a character in the imagined scene. Different futures may be imagined and a choice of future actions by that imagined self decided. Not all imagined choices will play out as imagined. (The best laid plans o' mice and men aft gang aglee.)

Will is as free as imagine is free. But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Effective will must take reality into account.

If insects imagine different futures in which they themselves play a part and can choose from different imagined scenarios, I would say they have free will.

I'll repeat again what I've repeated in a number of free-will discussions. If nothing else, I'll see if I can do a better job of expressing it.

We're human beings. What we're experiencing is what it means to be a human being. And that is what we are, no more, no less. Discussions on things like free-will represent people trying to act on themselves like an object, trying to impose man-made concepts on their understanding, as if this will somehow change the essence of what they are.

Put another way, people who are angsty about things like free-will are fundamentally at odds with who and what they are. Can you imagine a dog being angsty about being a dog? It's only people who can't just accept what they are and be content with it.

Why this obsessive need to philosophize about ourselves? Why not just use what evolution gave us to lead a good life?

 

[bilby]

It all depends on the definition of free will.

The free will that I believe exists is this. It is possible for the human (and no doubt many other animals) to imagine futures. In some the human is a character in the imagined scene. Different futures may be imagined and a choice of future actions by that imagined self decided. Not all imagined choices will play out as imagined. (The best laid plans o' mice and men aft gang aglee.)

Will is as free as imagine is free. But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Effective will must take reality into account.

If insects imagine different futures in which they themselves play a part and can choose from different imagined scenarios, I would say they have free will.

I'll repeat again what I've repeated in a number of free-will discussions. If nothing else, I'll see if I can do a better job of expressing it.

We're human beings. What we're experiencing is what it means to be a human being. And that is what we are, no more, no less. Discussions on things like free-will represent people trying to act on themselves like an object, trying to impose man-made concepts on their understanding, as if this will somehow change the essence of what they are.

Put another way, people who are angsty about things like free-will are fundamentally at odds with who and what they are. Can you imagine a dog being angsty about being a dog? It's only people who can't just accept what they are and be content with it.

Why this obsessive need to philosophize about ourselves? Why not just use what evolution gave us to lead a good life?

Philosophizing about ourselves is a subset of philosophizing about everything.

Dogs don't philosophize about themselves, which is why dogs don't have a space program.

If you want the latter, you need to have the former (no matter that it may sometimes do more harm than good).

 

[rousseau]

I'll repeat again what I've repeated in a number of free-will discussions. If nothing else, I'll see if I can do a better job of expressing it.

We're human beings. What we're experiencing is what it means to be a human being. And that is what we are, no more, no less. Discussions on things like free-will represent people trying to act on themselves like an object, trying to impose man-made concepts on their understanding, as if this will somehow change the essence of what they are.

Put another way, people who are angsty about things like free-will are fundamentally at odds with who and what they are. Can you imagine a dog being angsty about being a dog? It's only people who can't just accept what they are and be content with it.

Why this obsessive need to philosophize about ourselves? Why not just use what evolution gave us to lead a good life?

Philosophizing about ourselves is a subset of philosophizing about everything.

Dogs don't philosophize about themselves, which is why dogs don't have a space program.

If you want the latter, you need to have the former (no matter that it may sometimes do more harm than good).

The larger point is that it's absurd to feel angst about the nature of who you are.

Say, theoretically, we could prove human beings have no free will, whatever that would mean. Would that change anything about you? Would the person yesterday be fundamentally different from the person today? Would life suddenly be pointless? Why wasn't it pointless before?

Maybe some smart guy in a philosophy department can rationalise these questions somehow, but I'm convinced a lot of 'philosophy proper' does more to confuse people than give them a clear idea of how the world works.

Bottom line: we're alive, we're a particular species of living thing. That's our life. The end.

I don't know, is my point completely incomprehensible? Not sure if I'm coming across here.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, but methinks you prefer to dance instead of talk.

And it's clear you're not even trying to understand what I said. You like to talk. You're no good at listening.

Consciousness (to me) is nothing more than an awareness of ones surroundings.

And this will be what I call objective consciousness. So, what's new?

Even plants (using a different system) can be said to respond to their surroundings. But it is the system that gives them that ability and not grey matter. Insects use another system but there is no self awareness <snip>

This is clear confirmation that what you're talking about is what I call objective consciousness, to distinguish it from subjective consciousness. Usually, there's no metaphysical debate about how objective consciousness is obtained because people think they are able to identify objectively the physical characteristics and mechanisms that explain how it comes about. A machine equipped with sensors, a computer and smart software could be made objectively conscious in this sense.

Insects use another system but there is no self awareness, so while they give off the illusion of free will. ( eg: moving when they want to, etc.) it is simply instinct that rules the day.

Sorry, I don't understand the connection you seem to make between self awareness and free will. You seem to believe that it is because people believe we possess self-awareness that they also believe we possess free will. So, what is it that's so fundamentally different between being aware of oneself and being aware of one's surroundings that it would be a condition for possessing free will? Why would self-awareness be necessary to free will?

I won't go into all the examples of why free will doesn't exist in humans, the evidence is almost overwhelming, but keep your beliefs and enjoy your dance.

Again, you like to talk but you're no good at listening. I specified what I think most people mean by 'free will' and it's very different from the concept of free will usually discussed in philosophical debates. Yet, you think you can dismiss my views out of hand, without even addressing my interpretation of free will?!

Ok, I'll repeat it here, just for you, just to make sure you'll have no excuse for ignoring what I said:

If we want to decide whether a human being has free will, the first thing to do is define what we take to be a human being. So, me, I start with what we ordinarily call a human being, based on our everyday experience of dealing with particular instances of human beings. My understanding of free will is based on that, not on some religiously idealistic or scientifically abstract notion of human beings and free will. It's based on concrete examples of human beings and what they do. So, I won't be interested in why or how a human being is created or is allowed to function the way it does. And then I consider the notion of free will as a pragmatic characterisation of the interactions between human beings.

Once this is clarified, it's really easy to settle on a view about free will. What is it that a human being can do that a cow or a stone cannot? Sure, a stone does things, like weighing on whatever it is that it rests upon. Things like that, but not very interesting. Cows are marginally more interesting but not to the point that we would want to discuss cows and what they do all day long. Compare with human beings and what they can do. I can move my arms, shout, decide to go to bed early or late for whatever reason, eat something, write a poem, organise for the overthrow of the dictator, choose who I will vote for at the next election, whatever, but it's sure a long litany of things and my guess is that most humans are similarly gifted. That's free will. Just because they want to, human beings can do many things stones and cows can't. And, most of what people want to talk about all day long is mostly about this sort of things.

Now the fallacy is to deny we have free will on the ground that whatever we do and whatever we want to do is determined, even perhaps pre-determined, by the past and the laws of physics. It's a fallacy because free will is a concept that human beings have created and are using to say something important about their relations to each other, not about their relation to the fundamental laws of the reality we are necessarily a part of. Denying free will is as idiotic as denying we can talk sensibly about being sad or happy, interested or bored, feeling strong or low, in love or repulsed. I will guess that the notion of free will so denied is just a pathetic excuse for repeating again and again the hardcore materialist mantra. This notion is absurd to begin with because claiming absolute free will would be tantamount to claiming that human beings are as many gods. What reasonable people do instead is ask themselves what we really mean by free will and clearly most people won't want to mean something absurd.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, but methinks you prefer to dance instead of talk. Consciousness (to me) is nothing more than an awareness of ones surroundings. Even plants (using a different system) can be said to respond to their surroundings. But it is the system that gives them that ability and not grey matter. Insects use another system but there is no self awareness, so while they give off the illusion of free will. ( eg: moving when they want to, etc.) it is simply instinct that rules the day.

I won't go into all the examples of why free will doesn't exist in humans, the evidence is almost overwhelming, but keep your beliefs and enjoy your dance.

It all depends on the definition of free will.

The free will that I believe exists is this. It is possible for the human (and no doubt many other animals) to imagine futures. In some the human is a character in the imagined scene. Different futures may be imagined and a choice of future actions by that imagined self decided. Not all imagined choices will play out as imagined. (The best laid plans o' mice and men aft gang aglee.)

Will is as free as imagine is free. But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Effective will must take reality into account.

If insects imagine different futures in which they themselves play a part and can choose from different imagined scenarios, I would say they have free will.

I'd say, exactly so. Good job!

Maybe it's the first time I agree with you?

Still, I could point out a minor point in your piece I would disagree with. Maybe later.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll repeat again what I've repeated in a number of free-will discussions. If nothing else, I'll see if I can do a better job of expressing it.

We're human beings. What we're experiencing is what it means to be a human being. And that is what we are, no more, no less. Discussions on things like free-will represent people trying to act on themselves like an object, trying to impose man-made concepts on their understanding, as if this will somehow change the essence of what they are.

Put another way, people who are angsty about things like free-will are fundamentally at odds with who and what they are. Can you imagine a dog being angsty about being a dog? It's only people who can't just accept what they are and be content with it.

Why this obsessive need to philosophize about ourselves? Why not just use what evolution gave us to lead a good life?

That's interesting. Personally, I came to address the question of free will in reaction to the relentless posting on free will by hardcore materialists here insisting that free will doesn't exist. I'm not sure who first publicised the idea that humans possessed free will but I suspect that the notion just slowly emerged out of the sense people have of their personal autonomy relative to both their physical environment and other people. So, the critic of free will expressed by hardcore materialists misses the point as far as most people are concerned.

I assume that hardcore materialists are merely reacting to the idealist position defended by many philosophers, without realising perhaps that if you put together all the philosophers in the history of the world, they would still represent only a very small fraction of humanity.

So, I agree that the debate about free will is somewhat misguided but not for the reason you just indicated.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

If we want to decide whether a human being has free will, the first thing to do is define what we take to be a human being.

Let's not. That was easy. Now we don't have to bother with figuring out whether we have free will or not. Because it's uninteresting. Before you try to figure out if we have free will or not, perhaps you should start with establishing why you want to know it?

For our court systems it's important because they treat intentional and unintentional crimes differently. They also care about if things are objectively true or not. They've decided to sacrifice accuracy for efficiency. If they would actually give a shit about philosophy they wouldn't bother. But they don't care. They just want to get beyond reasonable doubt. So it works for them. But this is not a court of law.

This is a heritage from Christian theology. Which in turn is inherited from Roman law. Assuming free will is actually unnecessary for our legal systems. It's just something that's lingered. But we could as well simply explore the various scenarios available in the court room, and if an action was taken that did unnecessary damage, then guilty. We actually don't need to get mired in the motivations of the accused. BTW, criminal courts usually don't do that all that much anyway. Today they usually just get on with it.

So if the courts are more sensible today, then why can't we be?

So, me, I start with what we ordinarily call a human being, based on our everyday experience of dealing with particular instances of human beings. My understanding of free will is based on that, not on some religiously idealistic or scientifically abstract notion of human beings and free will. It's based on concrete examples of human beings and what they do. So, I won't be interested in why or how a human being is created or is allowed to function the way it does. And then I consider the notion of free will as a pragmatic characterisation of the interactions between human beings.

Once this is clarified, it's really easy to settle on a view about free will. What is it that a human being can do that a cow or a stone cannot? Sure, a stone does things, like weighing on whatever it is that it rests upon. Things like that, but not very interesting. Cows are marginally more interesting but not to the point that we would want to discuss cows and what they do all day long. Compare with human beings and what they can do. I can move my arms, shout, decide to go to bed early or late for whatever reason, eat something, write a poem, organise for the overthrow of the dictator, choose who I will vote for at the next election, whatever, but it's sure a long litany of things and my guess is that most humans are similarly gifted. That's free will. Just because they want to, human beings can do many things stones and cows can't. And, most of what people want to talk about all day long is mostly about this sort of things.

The above paragraph does prove one thing; all the goalposts are on wheels. No, it's not that simple. In fact.. there is no solution.

Now the fallacy is to deny we have free will on the ground that whatever we do and whatever we want to do is determined, even perhaps pre-determined, by the past and the laws of physics. It's a fallacy because free will is a concept that human beings have created and are using to say something important about their relations to each other, not about their relation to the fundamental laws of the reality we are necessarily a part of. Denying free will is as idiotic as denying we can talk sensibly about being sad or happy, interested or bored, feeling strong or low, in love or repulsed. I will guess that the notion of free will so denied is just a pathetic excuse for repeating again and again the hardcore materialist mantra. This notion is absurd to begin with because claiming absolute free will would be tantamount to claiming that human beings are as many gods. What reasonable people do instead is ask themselves what we really mean by free will and clearly most people won't want to mean something absurd.

Now, you're free to pick your fight. Or perhaps not.
EB

Wrong. Since the premises are flexible it is both true and false that we have free will.

My fight is that the free will debate is uninteresting. I'm not picking a team, because I don't think any side a case that will settle it. And does it matter? I don't think it does. So I'm moving on.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let's not. That was easy. Now we don't have to bother with figuring out whether we have free will or not. Because it's uninteresting.

If it really was, why would you be chipping in? Let's not? Easy: then don't.

Before you try to figure out if we have free will or not, perhaps you should start with establishing why you want to know it?

Easy too because the reason is not specific to free will. To the extent that we are interested in exchanging ideas with other people, we will want to clarify what we mean by certain words whose meaning appears contentious. That's what people do and there's no good reason to leave free will out of the picture.

For our court systems it's important because they treat intentional and unintentional crimes differently. They also care about if things are objectively true or not. They've decided to sacrifice accuracy for efficiency. If they would actually give a shit about philosophy they wouldn't bother. But they don't care. They just want to get beyond reasonable doubt. So it works for them. But this is not a court of law.

Not it's not but you've just provided your own very good example of why it's important to discuss the notion of free will. Anything that's important to the courts is important to any citizen susceptible of being brought in front of one. Or maybe you think you're immune to prosecution.

This is a heritage from Christian theology. Which in turn is inherited from Roman law. Assuming free will is actually unnecessary for our legal systems. It's just something that's lingered. But we could as well simply explore the various scenarios available in the court room, and if an action was taken that did unnecessary damage, then guilty. We actually don't need to get mired in the motivations of the accused. BTW, criminal courts usually don't do that all that much anyway. Today they usually just get on with it.

Sentencing people on the basis of causing objective harm is already taken into account, I think, at least if you're suing for liabilities and damages, in civil courts. The question then is about whether you did the deed, not whether it's was intentional. Free will is more likely to become an issue in public prosecutions, although maybe there are substantial differences between countries.

You are also giving another reason why it may be important to discuss free will, namely that, like it or not, it's a part of our culture. If you don't like it, the last thing to do would be to wait for other people to settle the issue of the reality and nature of free will.

So if the courts are more sensible today, then why can't we be?

I'm quite sure my view of free will is perfectly sensible.
EB

So, me, I start with what we ordinarily call a human being, based on our everyday experience of dealing with particular instances of human beings. My understanding of free will is based on that, not on some religiously idealistic or scientifically abstract notion of human beings and free will. It's based on concrete examples of human beings and what they do. So, I won't be interested in why or how a human being is created or is allowed to function the way it does. And then I consider the notion of free will as a pragmatic characterisation of the interactions between human beings.

Once this is clarified, it's really easy to settle on a view about free will. What is it that a human being can do that a cow or a stone cannot? Sure, a stone does things, like weighing on whatever it is that it rests upon. Things like that, but not very interesting. Cows are marginally more interesting but not to the point that we would want to discuss cows and what they do all day long. Compare with human beings and what they can do. I can move my arms, shout, decide to go to bed early or late for whatever reason, eat something, write a poem, organise for the overthrow of the dictator, choose who I will vote for at the next election, whatever, but it's sure a long litany of things and my guess is that most humans are similarly gifted. That's free will. Just because they want to, human beings can do many things stones and cows can't. And, most of what people want to talk about all day long is mostly about this sort of things.

The above paragraph does prove one thing; all the goalposts are on wheels. No, it's not that simple. In fact.. there is no solution.

If you say so. I would have liked some rational argument in support of your claim here, but you seem to know what you're talking about, so I know I must be wrong.

Now the fallacy is to deny we have free will on the ground that whatever we do and whatever we want to do is determined, even perhaps pre-determined, by the past and the laws of physics. It's a fallacy because free will is a concept that human beings have created and are using to say something important about their relations to each other, not about their relation to the fundamental laws of the reality we are necessarily a part of. Denying free will is as idiotic as denying we can talk sensibly about being sad or happy, interested or bored, feeling strong or low, in love or repulsed. I will guess that the notion of free will so denied is just a pathetic excuse for repeating again and again the hardcore materialist mantra. This notion is absurd to begin with because claiming absolute free will would be tantamount to claiming that human beings are as many gods. What reasonable people do instead is ask themselves what we really mean by free will and clearly most people won't want to mean something absurd.

Now, you're free to pick your fight. Or perhaps not.
EB

Wrong. Since the premises are flexible it is both true and false that we have free will.

Flexible premises? I don't know that kind of logic.

My fight is that the free will debate is uninteresting. I'm not picking a team, because I don't think any side a case that will settle it. And does it matter? I don't think it does. So I'm moving on.

Fare thee well.
EB

 

[untermensche]

We're human beings. What we're experiencing is what it means to be a human being. And that is what we are, no more, no less. Discussions on things like free-will represent people trying to act on themselves like an object, trying to impose man-made concepts on their understanding, as if this will somehow change the essence of what they are.

We are animals that because of our circumstances must constantly make choices. We have to limit our behaviors somewhat towards productive ends. We must eat and sleep.

The issue of free will is how are we able to make those choices.

If we make them just as the end result of some calculations in a computer-like manner then the decision is forced. There is no choice in the matter really.

But if we can make the decision based on ideas in our head and not some underlying programming then the decision is free.