The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
<the modules of the brain, testosterone and meds show that the will is not free
only because you insist on holding onto an incoherent notion of 'free will' that people (when surveyed) actually don't hold onto... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
My notion of free will is anything but incoherent. It may well be wrong but it's the ultimate in coherence: choices are made by the neural network in each person's brains. There's nothing else, there can not be incoherence in a set of one. What's incoherent is people's insistence on holding on to a will that's deterministic if there's no emotion and indeterministic otherwise; that's an excellent example of incoherence. Could you explain what's incoherent in my notion? Thanks! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
A few day's perspective can do wonders. I'm not really into this free-will debate myself. That's because I can't completely wrap my brain around some of the constructs that Tom and Alex seem to think are very important to the outcome.
However, the amazing thing to me is that the person most certain of their position that free-will actually exists - is the one who has never actually described, in simple terms, what free-will means (at least to them). That being Fred, of course. I notice that Tom and Alex are especially careful with their terms. To me, that seems to go along with rigor, in a debate. It would seem that someone so dismissive of others' ideas that he calls them "ugly babies" that spring from ignorance and non-rigorous argument, someone so certain that they are right about this that they assert that those who disagree are intellectually dishonest and immoral - would have a simple logical definition of free-will ready at hand to lay on us non-believers. So how about it, is there a there there, Fred? Do you actually have a coherent definition of free-will of your own that you are demanding that others acknowledge? If so, I haven't seen it yet. Like, what it does and how it actually affects behavior? Or is this just another one of your vacuous ideological tirades based on nothing more than your hatred of atheists? BTW - LeDoux's downward causation is simply an acknowledgment that thoughts can affect behavior. Le Doux makes no claims about thoughts being an example of free-will (of any kind). Thoughts are not free-will - at least not until you can show that some thoughts in some brains are not the result of the chemicals and neurons in those brains. How about it, Fred? Here's your chance to lay some rigor on us. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; July 26th, 2006 at 02:22 PM.. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...0&postcount=37 I noted the following: Quote:
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
"We seem to have some intuitive sense . . ."? Well, many people seem to have some intuitive sense that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on 9/11 too. The behavior-controlling emotions of ideology are much stronger than those of reason . . . as you repeatedly affirm for me in your posts. Much of science has been a process of proving with falsifiable evidence and hypotheses that things we thought were intuitively true (god, humans can be possesed by the devil, the earth is flat, heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth, etc. - are wrong. How is your intuitive notion of free-will different from those? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My challenge for you was to provide a logical explanation of just how this free-will operates to affect behavior - something that can be examined against actual observations in the context of some plausible model of the mind. As I predicted, all you've offered is a rewording of your ideological beliefs. I find this baby particularly ugly and in desparate need of a change of diapers. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; July 28th, 2006 at 04:35 PM.. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, morality, emergence, accidents
Quote:
Nonetheless, MM may, unwittingly perhaps, have a point regarding JB's explanation of “emergenceâ€â€”I mean let’s face it, while the seed analogy does seem to capture some of the essence of “emergence,†it is rather circular. And BTW Carey, if you happen to be lurking, I don’t find the accident scenario to be “upsetting,†necessarily, it’s just that I find randomness to be a rather ineffective explanation, a masquerade for ignorance, like not knowing which Monty Hall door has the prize, or not knowing how/why entropy at the beginning, 14 billion years ago, was so low. But then it’s my view that “randomness†is an illusion . . . although ignorance certainly seems to be real, and probabilities are nothing more than our attempts to quantify our ignorance. Consider Carey: Can one prove randomness? Is randomness falsifiable? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
You seem to have missed that I also said that what makes us different are the things that make us feel good. Re-read that last sentence because I think therein lies the answer to a lot of perplexing puzzles of human behavior - and the motivation for many of the posts in this forum. In this case - as I previously stated - I have no dog in this free-will fight. At least, not at the level where Tom and Alex are providing their discussion. I am generally disinclined toward any supernatural explanations - of anything. Your description of free-will smells suspiciously like loaded nappies in that regard - even though you've been pretty cagey about making statements that have enough substance to pin you down. You seem to have a lot to say about the intellectual honesty of those who disagree with you. Intellectual honesty means laying out your argument in all its detail and glory for others to critique - not hiding behind psudo-scientific terms and obfuscations. Are you willing to defend your notion of free-will in that intellectually honest way? I'll have respect for any non-supernatural description of free-will that someone proposes. In this case though, I'm simply appreciative of those who have the ability to think deeply about complex things like this and approach them through reason and not superstition. Both Tom and Alex qualify in that regard - and until I can fully grasp their arguments I'll hold off on taking a side. What I'm saying is that regardless of the topic, arguments to reason make me feel good - even if they are not perfect (who's reason is). But, I appreciate those who make that attempt. Also, that arguments to superstition trigger my skepticism. That's my primary ideological bias here. I'll freely admit to being swayed by those emotions. We all make behavior decisions according to how our predictions of the result of that behavior will make us feel. When I contemplate accepting an argument based on the best logic, and not superstition, I feel good. I'm thankful that my mind developed in that way - even if I can't logically follow every well-stated scientific argument to its conclusion. Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; July 28th, 2006 at 09:54 PM.. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Re: free will, determinism, and morality
Quote:
But one can see how MM “feels compelled by her emotions,†to believe whatever it is that she happens to believe, since, as she has previously declared, she believes whatever it is she believes b/c that is what makes MM herself “feel good,†and, as she explains in her so-called “axiom,†MM “uses her brains to justify itâ€; and also, as MM now amplifies, “what makes us different are the things that make us feel good.†|
|
|