From: steve p (aflaksp@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 17 2005 - 11:03:40 MST
you say that whether or not the the neurons fire is
based on electrical impulses which shows that you are
exercising free will, but people have no choice on
what these impulses do. the impulses are solely based
on outcomes of previous events. the only way that you
could claim this is free will is if these impulses are
somehow determined randomly, which i would still not
consider free will because you are bound by the
outcome of a random event. when these impulses are
looked at on the subatomic level, it is just certain
particles reacting with each other. to argue that two
reactions with the exact same variables can have a
different outcome is to argue against all logic. if we
could somehow create two people in two parralel
universes who are exactly identical down to the
subatomic level and have been raised 100% the same,
and we made them make a decision on something they
would both make the same decision. this shows that
they do not have free will because they have to make
the same choice.
--- Eric Rauch <erauch@gmail.com> wrote:
> how is a rational individual free? he is bound by
> his rationality which is
> ultimately the product of unchosen factors. People
> ARE very reluctant to
> let go of blame
>
> On 12/17/05, micah glasser <micahglasser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If you define free-will in terms of causality
> then, of course, there is no
> > free-will. However, I think that there is
> something that is meant by
> > free-will and it really has nothing to do with
> causality. The issue, I
> > think, is in what faculty of the mind governs a
> person's actions - instinct
> > or reason. We all know people who's lives are
> governed by instinct almost
> > exclusively. these people act more like animals
> than people. The truly free
> > individual is the rational individual. It is a
> state of consciousness that
> > can be achieved. The ability to achieve this state
> of rationality may be
> > determined by a combination of genetics and
> environment, but nevertheless,
> > that person is 'self-determinate'. This idea is
> the crux of almost all of
> > German philosophy - everything from Kant's
> categorical Imperative to
> > Nietzsche's Will to Power. Man is a being who has
> the power to direct his
> > own actions based on reason (modelling the
> universe and acting toward a
> > super-goal). This same idea can be found also in
> the theology of St. Paul.
> > Paul who constantly makes references to the
> bondage of the flesh (instinct)
> > and admonishes his followers to "take the mind of
> Christ" (rationality) in
> > order to gain freedom over the bondage.
> >
> > On 12/16/05, Phillip Huggan <cdnprodigy@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "S" is meaningless. Proof of Free-will is
> physics, not philosophy.
> > > Sure, free-will (if it exists) must be derived
> from unchosen factors because
> > > it is possible to trace the chain of causality
> backwards to when *you* were
> > > just your Dad's cumshot and your Mom's ova. In
> my model, somewhere around
> > > E(one billion), you are two years old and your
> neurons are on the verge of
> > > firing; you are deciding whether or not to eat
> paint. The 1st time you
> > > sampled paint (E-500 million), it was
> inevitable. This time around your
> > > brain isn't sure. Part of your decision is
> based upon your memory of tastes
> > > you like. You remember that you enjoyed the
> taste of paint and would prefer
> > > to experience the qualia again. When whether or
> not your neurons fire
> > > depend upon electrical actions in parts of your
> brain that constitute self
> > > (including memory), you are exercising
> free-will. It doesn't happen too
> > > often (and not at all if ! this model of the
> brain is faulty).
> > >
> > > *Eric Rauch <erauch@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > > <SNIP> Assume that a person (P) is born with
> certain endowments,
> > > genetics and
> > > physical factors in general (G), and maybe a
> spirit or some other
> > > ethereal energy (S). So at time 0, before the
> person has had any
> > > experience with the world or had the opportunity
> to make any choices,
> > > the total contents of the person will be P = G +
> S. None of these
> > > factors are the product of free will. G is the
> product of the parents
> > > union, and S (if it is nonzero) is chosen by god
> or some other
> > > ethereal force. At time 1, the person makes its
> first contact with
> > > the world (W), another non! -chosen factor, and
> has experience E(1).
> > > E(1) is necessarily the result of W, G, S, or
> some combination of the
> > > three. Regardless of the permutation, the
> experience is not the
> > > result of free will unless free will is defined
> as the product of
> > > non-chosen factors.
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I swear upon the alter of God, eternal hostility
> to every form of tyranny
> > over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT