Debunk Free Will

[FilmSnob]

Nietzsche once said that free will seemed only to exist for philosophers to sharpen their nails on, or something like that, in debunking it.

So philosophers, debunk free will.

[Stoic Guardian]

Volchok has been trying that sense he got here.
Though he's really more of a psychologist (or so he claims).

[FilmSnob]

I will take, to start, a deterministic approach, as follows:

If physics were improved to the level that it could predict all physical phenomena, then a fast enough computer could use its equations to determine everything that ever happened and ever will happen. So your choices, whereas they might not have been "written down," are not free in the sense that they can only go one way. Anything else is an illusion.

(Anti-debunkers also welcome, but pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase use logic)

[Stoic Guardian]

I'm worn out on this topic, but this is my stance.

I believe that within each human being there are things they will through choice and things that are innate within them.

So in that sense I believe we both do an do not have free will, which is dependant on what it is they will and why.

Personally I could care less whether or not I have free will, I'd like too think that I do, but if not oh well.

Comes with following much of Stoicism I suppose.

[FilmSnob]

Personally I could care less whether or not I have free will, I'd like too think that I do, but if not oh well.

i deeply agree with this. It's meant as more of a philosophical training excercice, as stated in the op. Broadening of perspectives.

[Dan~]

I posted a reply but it disappeared.

My argument is that free will isn't reducable to free will.
When we reduce our free will, it gets down to the components of cause.
We need an outside world before we can form ideas. We are influenced.
We didn't choose to be born, our parents chose to make us born.
We don't get to choose what species we are, therefor we don't get to
choose our own nature.

[Moreno]

Nietzsche once said that free will seemed only to exist for philosophers to sharpen their nails on, or something like that, in debunking it.

So philosophers, debunk free will.

I seem compelled not to.

[Flannel Jesus]

i personally have never heard a definition of free will that was all of the following things simultaneously:
clear
not self-contradictory
mutually exclusive with determinism
defined in such a way to exclude rocks or other non conscious matter

as such, it's not really clear to me what there is to debunk.

[FilmSnob]

Nietzsche once said that free will seemed only to exist for philosophers to sharpen their nails on, or something like that, in debunking it.

So philosophers, debunk free will.

I seem compelled not to.

Lol! I just got it.

A very fine, multi-layered joke you have come up with.

[volchok]

We don't need to debunk it. It debunks itself. It's a nonsensical notion.
If however you're not convinced, there's a plethora of scientific experiments done on the subject that are extremely "revealing".

[volchok]

Though he's really more of a psychologist (or so he claims).

This personal jabs are a clear indication of how weak your arguments, vision and philosophy is.
Anyway, I never claimed anything of the sort here. I'm not a philosopher (what is a philosopher anyway) and I'm not a psychologist.
I am taking a degree in psychology.

[FilmSnob]

We don't need to debunk it. It debunks itself. It's a nonsensical notion.
If however you're not convinced, there's a plethora of scientific experiments done on the subject that are extremely "revealing".

Guy, this isn't sufficient for the purposes of this exercice.

Tell us how it debunks itself.

[anon]

...there's a plethora of scientific experiments done on the subject that are extremely "revealing".

Libet's experiments show that conscious choices are constrained by deep-rooted habits. Conscious choice is much more limited than we tend to think - the subconscious, the body... these are powerful forces which the conscious mind can influence, but can't always direct. And in the end these aspects of ourselves are just that - aspects. They aren't separable. For people who would like to have more conscious control over their actions, it would be wise to see things in terms of habit-forming and habit-dismantling, rather than some sort of dualistic war between mind and body. An analogy I like to use - you can't turn the steering wheel on a supertanker and expect the ship to turn on a dime. But you really can steer the ship. If the captain is an illusion, so is the ship. If the ship isn't an illusion, neither is the captain. People who think only the captain is an illusion give him far too much importance - what makes him (or her) so special?

[FilmSnob]

...there's a plethora of scientific experiments done on the subject that are extremely "revealing".

Libet's experiments show that conscious choices are constrained by deep-rooted habits. Conscious choice is much more limited than we tend to think - the subconscious, the body... these are powerful forces which the conscious mind can influence, but not always direct. And in the end these aspects of ourselves are just that - aspects. They aren't separable. For people who would like to have more conscious control over their actions, it would be wise to see things in terms of habit-forming and habit-dismantling, rather than some sort of dualistic war between mind and body. An analogy I like to use - you can turn the steering wheel on a supertanker and expect the ship to turn on a dime. But you really can steer the ship. If the captain is an illusion, so is the ship. If the ship isn't an illusion, neither is the captain. People who think only the captain is an illusion give him far too much importance - what makes him (or her) so special?

Ah! A very good anti-debunking.

So, free will exists, but it is weak and limited? i.e. we can't control what we choose, but we can kind of control what direction we choose in?

[volchok]

Guy, this isn't sufficient for the purposes of this exercice.

Tell us how it debunks itself.

Dude, there's a 30 + page thread on determinism and free will.
Just look for it.

[volchok]

Libet's experiments show that conscious choices are constrained by deep-rooted habits. Conscious choice is much more limited than we tend to think - the subconscious, the body... these are powerful forces which the conscious mind can influence, but can't always direct. And in the end these aspects of ourselves are just that - aspects. They aren't separable. For people who would like to have more conscious control over their actions, it would be wise to see things in terms of habit-forming and habit-dismantling, rather than some sort of dualistic war between mind and body. An analogy I like to use - you can't turn the steering wheel on a supertanker and expect the ship to turn on a dime. But you really can steer the ship. If the captain is an illusion, so is the ship. If the ship isn't an illusion, neither is the captain. People who think only the captain is an illusion give him far too much importance - what makes him (or her) so special?

I honestly didn't understand if you're saying that there is free will or that there isn't.
In case it's the first, Libet's experiment is one experiment. There's plenty more, with different methodologies, different objectives and so forth..

[anon]

...there's a plethora of scientific experiments done on the subject that are extremely "revealing".

Libet's experiments show that conscious choices are constrained by deep-rooted habits. Conscious choice is much more limited than we tend to think - the subconscious, the body... these are powerful forces which the conscious mind can influence, but not always direct. And in the end these aspects of ourselves are just that - aspects. They aren't separable. For people who would like to have more conscious control over their actions, it would be wise to see things in terms of habit-forming and habit-dismantling, rather than some sort of dualistic war between mind and body. An analogy I like to use - you can turn the steering wheel on a supertanker and expect the ship to turn on a dime. But you really can steer the ship. If the captain is an illusion, so is the ship. If the ship isn't an illusion, neither is the captain. People who think only the captain is an illusion give him far too much importance - what makes him (or her) so special?

Ah! A very good anti-debunking.

So, free will exists, but it is weak and limited? i.e. we can't control what we choose, but we can kind of control what direction we choose in?

I can't commit to a statement like "free will exists". I can't commit to "determinism is true" either. I think faulty concepts lead to false dilemmas. But then you have to figure out how the concepts are faulty - that's the hard work of philosophy, rather than coming up with a clever way to explain away the dilemma.

In a practical, everyday sense, I believe we can consciously direct our lives, even if we can't control our lives.

[anon]

Libet's experiments show that conscious choices are constrained by deep-rooted habits. Conscious choice is much more limited than we tend to think - the subconscious, the body... these are powerful forces which the conscious mind can influence, but can't always direct. And in the end these aspects of ourselves are just that - aspects. They aren't separable. For people who would like to have more conscious control over their actions, it would be wise to see things in terms of habit-forming and habit-dismantling, rather than some sort of dualistic war between mind and body. An analogy I like to use - you can't turn the steering wheel on a supertanker and expect the ship to turn on a dime. But you really can steer the ship. If the captain is an illusion, so is the ship. If the ship isn't an illusion, neither is the captain. People who think only the captain is an illusion give him far too much importance - what makes him (or her) so special?

I honestly didn't understand if you're saying that there is free will or that there isn't.

That's because there is no simple answer to the question, unless you assume that by "free will" people mean something extraordinarily simplistic.

In case it's the first, Libet's experiment is one experiment. There's plenty more, with different methodologies, different objectives and so forth..

There can be no experiment that touches the determinism versus free will question in any way. How can there be?

[FilmSnob]

I think faulty concepts lead to false dilemmas. But then you have to figure out how the concepts are faulty - that's the hard work of philosophy

If physics were improved to the level that it could predict all physical phenomena, then a fast enough computer could use its equations to determine everything that ever happened and ever will happen.

How's that for a working definition of determinism?

And come on, don't be shy, if you believe in a very weak, very limited free will, say that you believe in free will. If you think free will is a faulty concept, then you are a debunker!

[anon]

I think faulty concepts lead to false dilemmas. But then you have to figure out how the concepts are faulty - that's the hard work of philosophy

If physics were improved to the level that it could predict all physical phenomena, then a fast enough computer could use its equations to determine everything that ever happened and ever will happen.

How's that for a working definition of determinism?

And come on, don't be shy, if you believe in a very weak, very limited free will, say that you believe in free will. If you think free will is a faulty concept, then you are a debunker!

I think it's a bit sloppy in its use of "predict" and "determine". And it's a bit circular - it sounds like you're saying something like "if determinism were actually true, then it would have to be theoretically true as well".

[FilmSnob]

I think faulty concepts lead to false dilemmas. But then you have to figure out how the concepts are faulty - that's the hard work of philosophy

If physics were improved to the level that it could predict all physical phenomena, then a fast enough computer could use its equations to determine everything that ever happened and ever will happen.

How's that for a working definition of determinism?

And come on, don't be shy, if you believe in a very weak, very limited free will, say that you believe in free will. If you think free will is a faulty concept, then you are a debunker!

I think it's a bit sloppy in its use of "predict" and "determine". And it's a bit circular - it sounds like you're saying something like "if determinism were actually true, then it would have to be theoretically true as well".

Good point. I'll work on it.

[volchok]

There can be no experiment that touches the determinism versus free will question in any way. How can there be?

Really?
I mean, really ?
Might as well say that no experiment can touch any subject in any way.
That post almost isn't worthy of a response.
Do you think knowledge is pointless?
Do you think an understanding of the world is vacuous?
Because if so, what the hell are you doing in this forum?

[anon]

There can be no experiment that touches the determinism versus free will question in any way. How can there be?

Really?
I mean, really ?
Might as well say that no experiment can touch any subject in any way.
That post almost isn't worthy of a response.
Do you think knowledge is pointless?
Do you think an understanding of the world is vacuous?

My point is determinism can't be disproved. It's unfalsifiable.

[volchok]

My point is determinism can't be disproved. It's unfalsifiable.

You know what else can't be disproved?
Fairies, unicorns, trolls, witchery and magic.
Do you believe in any of those?
If you don't, you got some serious thinking to do.

[FilmSnob]

My point is determinism can't be disproved. It's unfalsifiable.

You know what else can't be disproved?
Fairies, unicorns, trolls, witchery and magic.
Do you believe in any of those?
If you don't, you got some serious thinking to do.

I really hope anon is wise enough to stop feeding you.