We can point to many causes- our genes, mental and physical health of mother before, during and after pregnancy, early bonding and childhood development, placement in family, economic and social influences, etc. Even the country of birth and historical period matter. Reason doesn't kick in until around age seven and many early influences are forgotten, misinterpreted or markers for life. The fact that one cannot readily trace back to initial influences and causes does not mean that they don't exist. At the moment of choice, I believe these markers are part of the decision- even if the decision is to reject the influences and do the exact opposite of the past- like a child who swears he will be different than the parent but winds up being similar or tries to out-do the parent and fails.
On Aug 9, 8:38 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh heh Rigsy. > > Nope I think the deterministic stance is kinda like a best guess. > I mean for us to be sure that our lives are determined we need to > coreleate all causes. > > Besides, I do not belive that cause and effect bars our freedom of > choice. > > On Aug 9, 12:41 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > One's will is shaped by numerous influences and experiences therefore > > it is determined. Notes from the Underground-D does not convince me > > otherwise. I'll see if Hocking can offer something. > > > You really have to be a detective of self and follow choice back to > > its root cause. Maybe you are too young or busy! :-) > > > On Aug 8, 6:12 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ahh then I see. I do not belive that choice and free will are > > > seperate things at all. > > > > Let us look at the words. > > > > Free will. > > > > The ability to chose in acordance with your will. > > > > On Aug 8, 11:47 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Haven't you noticed trying to get from A to B and winding up at C? I > > > > have. So far I have been going over some stuff by Sophocles. > > > > Epictetus, Zola, Marx&Engels, Huxley and Skinner (Determinists) but > > > > have to read Dostoyevsky and Hocking (Free Will). I think there is a > > > > difference between choice and free will. I make choices all the time > > > > but am not sure my will is really free. > > > > > On Aug 8, 5:07 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ohh I disagree with this entirley Rigsy. > > > > > > At the time the Minds says take action B, then we have made a choice. > > > > > I question the ability of things to force a desicion from us and I'l > > > > > ask once again is it possible for somebody to force anybody into > > > > > makeing a choice that they do not want to? > > > > > > On Aug 6, 2:22 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I disagree that we possess or always have free will at our disposal- > > > > > > even the civil laws make distinctions. We are forced onto many paths > > > > > > and decisions- softly or harshly. > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 2:04 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > You lays have free will no matter how you seeing it created. It > > > > > > > is the consequences of those choices that can be a bitch, > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > On 4 aug. 2011, at 17:48, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > There are a number of approaches to this question, Jo; but > > > > > > > > essentially > > > > > > > > and in summary (and i do a great injustice to a very powerful > > > > > > > > philosophical school), the deterministic tradition suggests > > > > > > > > that since > > > > > > > > we''re fundamentally bounded chemical systems immersed in a > > > > > > > > "sea" of > > > > > > > > ever more elaborate chemical processes, regulated by immutable > > > > > > > > (replicable and predictive) physical laws, and nothing else > > > > > > > > (which > > > > > > > > takes you back to the mind/brain question), our actions are no > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > than expressions of these chemical processes, constrained at an > > > > > > > > aggregate level by universal physical laws. When we think we > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > decisions based on choice, it is the mind "stroking" itself > > > > > > > > since, in > > > > > > > > terms of "proximate" action, we know that our decisions are > > > > > > > > preceeded > > > > > > > > in time by a neuro-electrcal "footprint" (interesting work by > > > > > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > Libet, presented in his book "Mind Time"); and in terms of more > > > > > > > > deliberative action, we are pretty certain to make the same > > > > > > > > decisions > > > > > > > > over and over again given the same set of variables, since our > > > > > > > > cognition is hard wired, and its operations are governed by the > > > > > > > > self > > > > > > > > same chemical processes and physical laws. Hence the question: > > > > > > > > do we > > > > > > > > have free will? and if we do, how much free will do we have? > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I don't understand how some can say we don't have free will. > > > > > > > >> You can > > > > > > > >> choose to do anything you want at any given time. How is that > > > > > > > >> not free > > > > > > > >> will? > > > > > > > > >> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> "We have access to a technology that would have looked like > > > > > > > >>> sorcery in > > > > > > > >>> Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's head > > > > > > > >>> and read > > > > > > > >>> their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us any > > > > > > > >>> nearer to > > > > > > > >>> knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you measure > > > > > > > >>> brainwaves, > > > > > > > >>> you can never know exactly what experience they represent," > > > > > > > >>> says > > > > > > > >>> psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, UK. If > > > > > > > >>> anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's maxim. > > > > > > > >>> You, too, > > > > > > > >>> might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says Stanford > > > > > > > >>> University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even if you > > > > > > > >>> don't > > > > > > > >>> realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based on the > > > > > > > >>> belief, > > > > > > > >>> particularly common among neuroscientists who study brain > > > > > > > >>> scans, that > > > > > > > >>> we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the machine; > > > > > > > >>> our > > > > > > > >>> actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely beyond > > > > > > > >>> our > > > > > > > >>> control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an illusion. > > > > > > > >>> So, it may well be that you live in a computer simulation in > > > > > > > >>> which you > > > > > > > >>> are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a zombie > > > > > > > >>> and so > > > > > > > >>> could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent New > > > > > > > >>> Scientist) > > > > > > > > >>> We range over debates in free will and what it is to be > > > > > > > >>> human. So far > > > > > > > >>> we haven't established free will or even that we are not > > > > > > > >>> merely > > > > > > > >>> avatars in 'something else's game'. > > > > > > > > >>> I wonder whether there are advantages in considering > > > > > > > >>> ourselves as > > > > > > > >>> creatures limited by programming and also capable of it?- > > > > > > > >>> Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
