|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tfunk
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think it's a matter of attitude and how you interpret the word 'illusion'.
You could argue that everything is an illusion and all there really is are atoms and void...how would you realise that 'fact' as subjective reality?
There are many different philosophical perspectives to take, but I think it is wise not to mistake any philosophical model for the 'thing itself'.
No matter how you choose to conceptualise your actions it is an artifact of the actual event. If I decide in my head "I am a victim of causality...everything that arises must have been an effect of a preceding action since something cannot come from nothing" then I might despair.
And yet it can be argued that the opposite is true...so what we have is a brain trying to understand reality by attaching a symbolic hierarchy of 'meaning' to it and then governing its interpreation of the world according to this image. Looking at the sky in terms of gases...
One entertaining perspective is that the question masks a fundamental delusion as there is no 'who' that is seperate from the events of the universe in the first place and therefore the concept of freewill is flawed since the 'I' and the cause of the 'I' are one and the same process...
There is no 'who' that can or cannot have freewill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kimchi story
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love this question because it basically answers itself: that you can and do ask if you have free will is evidence that you certainly do (at least to some degree). But to resolve the question is to lapse into a simple binary of free vs not free and that is a mistake that gave Calvin a rush and therefore gave us Protestantism in various forms (not to put too fine a point on it).
Thus, arguments for 100% genetic predisposition are, imho, akin to arguments for divine predestination - which is a comforting perspective in that I know that even if I can ask if I have free will and answer as I feel fit, I will never know because if I am a predestined reprobate (or genetically prediposed to blissful ignorance) I will believe I am right even though I am wrong.
Is free will an illusion? Definitely maybe... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had to read the previous two posts several times and I'm still not sure I follow. This was good though: "I love this question because it basically answers itself: that you can and do ask if you have free will is evidence that you certainly do (at least to some degree)."
Basically, free will is not an illusion. I decided to have my lunch with my male co-teacher today instead of the ladies because he politely asked, so I figured why not. We could've all dined together if we wanted, but folks chose otherwise. This was a free choice - I could've done otherwise if I wanted.
This is a reasonable argument for the existence of free will. Saying we do not have free will on the basis that we have no say in our (a) sexuality, (b) wants and desires and (c) abilities would be a totally unreasonable, impossibly strict argument for the non-existence of free will.
To not have free will, one must not be able to choose otherwise if one wishes. It is as simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianInSuwon
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion there is no free will.
Genetic pre-dispositions are not the only influence. Its not a nature vs nurture debate. Both influence your decisions. The bottom line is the more I know about someone the easier it is to predict which choice they will make in the future. The only thing limiting my certainty in predicting their choose is my lack of knowledge. If I was aware of all the factors influencing them I could predict their choose with 100% certainty. But just because I'm not completely aware of the factors doesn't mean that the factors don't exist. It doesn't imply the person is using free will.
Every event/decision has a reason (influencing factors) behind it.
Last year, a friend and I had this discussion. Towards the end of the conversation, I asked him if he could go out tomorrow and kill someone (fully knowing that he couldn't, neither of us are killers). He said "no", but if someone hurt my family I could. But this only further proves my theory. He needed a reason (an influencing factor) to kill someone. He couldn't just use his free will to decide to kill someone. He was trapped. Until the right situation presented itself he would remain incapable of the act.
Give me a situation in which you've used free will. I truly believe we can start peeling back the curtain and reveal some of the layers that influenced you.
I've never seen an event or decision separate itself from its influencing factor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| BrianInSuwon wrote: |
In my opinion there is no free will.
Genetic pre-dispositions are not the only influence. Its not a nature vs nurture debate. Both influence your decisions. The bottom line is the more I know about someone the easier it is to predict which choice they will make in the future. The only thing limiting my certainty in predicting their choose is my lack of knowledge. If I was aware of all the factors influencing them I could predict their choose with 100% certainty. But just because I'm not completely aware of the factors doesn't mean that the factors don't exist. It doesn't imply the person is using free will.
Every event/decision has a reason (influencing factors) behind it.
Last year, a friend and I had this discussion. Towards the end of the conversation, I asked him if he could go out tomorrow and kill someone (fully knowing that he couldn't, neither of us are killers). He said "no", but if someone hurt my family I could. But this only further proves my theory. He needed a reason (an influencing factor) to kill someone. He couldn't just use his free will to decide to kill someone. He was trapped. Until the right situation presented itself he would remain incapable of the act.
Give me a situation in which you've used free will. I truly believe we can start peeling back the curtain and reveal some of the layers that influenced you.
I've never seen an event or decision separate itself from its influencing factor. |
Influences and motivations are different than dictates. I agree with some of the posters who have already posted that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Also, I think it's pretty certain that free will exists, but it is always guided by external influences. This makes the will exist somewhere between free and slave.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without reading anything in the thread, I can confirm that free will is an illusion.
Everything is an illusion.
edit: it might be useful to divide the determinists from the fatalists at some point
Last edited by gang ah jee on Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianInSuwon wrote: |
The bottom line is the more I know about someone the easier it is to predict which choice they will make in the future. The only thing limiting my certainty in predicting their choose is my lack of knowledge. If I was aware of all the factors influencing them I could predict their choose with 100% certainty.
|
Hmmm, a very classical view of the world. However it is thought that at the atomic level matter does not behave in a predictable fashion. If you accept that most of the motivations that drive us are created on the molecular level, even a perfect knowledge of the starting position of each atom in each molecule would not allow us to know with any certainty what will happen in a very short time.
To suppose you can scale this up to predict what a whole organism would do is a leap not at all supported by any work to date. Well besides that that uses well out of position star and planetary alignments, or the innards of fish.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Without reading anything in the thread, I can confirm that free will is an illusion.
Everything is an illusion. |
What do you mean by "everything is an illusion?" Do you consider nothing to be physical? Please explain. I am having a hard time understanding how a materialistic atheist (assuming you are) can believe that everything is an illusion. I thought this was the type of absurdity reserved for us religious freaks~
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BrianInSuwon wrote: |
| In my opinion there is no free will. |
I've come across this argument before. It's very hard, if not impossible to refute, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's valid - there's trickery in there somewhere!
| Quote: |
| Genetic pre-dispositions are not the only influence. Its not a nature vs nurture debate. Both influence your decisions. The bottom line is the more I know about someone the easier it is to predict which choice they will make in the future. |
That may be true, in your experience, but that experience is over a very limited range. If you apply the rules to the 100% case, you are extraploating to an enormous.
A comparison: The classical (Newtonian) laws of physics, down to an atomic level, apply to things in the everyday world, but do not apply to things in vastly different conditions, like inside a sun. Like your rule, those laws are descriptive in nature and only apply to the conditions in which they are observed.
| Quote: |
The only thing limiting my certainty in predicting their choose is my lack of knowledge. If I was aware of all the factors influencing them I could predict their choose with 100% certainty. But just because I'm not completely aware of the factors doesn't mean that the factors don't exist. It doesn't imply the person is using free will.
Every event/decision has a reason (influencing factors) behind it. |
Since you don't know all of the factors, you can't rule out factors OTHER THAN genetic or behavioural.
| Quote: |
Give me a situation in which you've used free will. I truly believe we can start peeling back the curtain and reveal some of the layers that influenced you.
I've never seen an event or decision separate itself from its influencing factor. |
No decision is free from "factors", but if the subject is sufficiently unaware of the factors, the resulting illusion of free choice is no different from actual free choice, especially if you consider the purpose of "free choice" being the learning from the consequence and subsequent modification behaviour/future choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Without reading anything in the thread, I can confirm that free will is an illusion.
Everything is an illusion. |
What do you mean by "everything is an illusion?" Do you consider nothing to be physical? Please explain. I am having a hard time understanding how a materialistic atheist (assuming you are) can believe that everything is an illusion. I thought this was the type of absurdity reserved for us religious freaks~
Peace |
Your perceptions of things aren't the things themselves - not even your own internal processes. Everything we know has been processed through biological sensory systems, and isn't what we think it is, in the same way that a photograph isn't what it represents. The map is not the territory.
I'm not saying that nothing matters, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi story
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Everything is an illusion" is up there with "all knowledge is neurosis".
It's great, I love it, it is what is meant when people say "perception is everything". If you believe that the human experience is individual, then everything is an illusion, all knowledge is neurosis and perception is everything.
I prefer to think that all knowledge is a leap of faith, but I'm okay with the other two.
As for there being no free will - while it is difficult to refute it is also an argument in the negative and therefore impossible to prove. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scientists have been able to show in some cases that instinctive behavior is genetically controlled and that in more complex behavior more than one gene is involved, so that different genes control different stages of the behavior.
A certain breed of bird has a gene that causes them to dive while in flight and a gene that cause them to pull out of the dive before they hit the ground. If that breed of bird is mated with another breed that doesn't have that coding, 25% of the offspring end up commiting suicide.
Why?
25% of the offspring end up with a gene for diving but no gene to make them pull out of the dive before they hit the ground.
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
If, however, what we mean by free will is the ability to choose to some extent - choose chicken or beef, choose to kill or not to kill, choose to shag or not to shag, choose to take a taxi to work or the subway, choose to go to sleep at 11pm or 1230am - then it would appear we have some freedom.
|
Maybe not (I'm not disagreeing, I couldn't possibly know, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here).
1) Scientists have shown that some instinctive behavior is genetically programmed and it's quite likely that all instinctive behavior is similarly programmed (the only other possible explanation for instinctive behavior is that it's some sort of inherited memory of learned behavior but I don't think this is really being seriously considered at the moment).
2) It's been shown that where people have an irrestible compulsion to act in a certain way they, will rationalise to give themselves a false explanation for their action allowing themselves the illusion that they freely chose to act in the way they did (as in the case of post-hypnotic suggestion).
3) (This is where I'm making a leap but it's not by any means well without the realms of possibility). If instinctive bevior is genetically controlled then it's possible that all behavior is genetically controlled and because we don't know that this is the reason for our actions, we rationalise by believing that we freely chose those actions.
Let me give an example.
Imagine I have a gene that compells me to throw myself off the Eiffel Tower should I ever find myself on top of it.
Imagine I also have a gene that tells me to preserve my life.
In some circumstances the the first gene has a stronger influence (when I'm actually on the Eiffel Tower), in other circumstances the the influence of the second gene is stronger.
I am aware that I possess the first gene but I do not know I possess the second. I therefore at all times avoid climbing the Eiffel Tower believing that I have chosen to save my life whereas in fact I am merely obeying the imperative of the second gene. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| BrianInSuwon wrote: |
The bottom line is the more I know about someone the easier it is to predict which choice they will make in the future. The only thing limiting my certainty in predicting their choose is my lack of knowledge. If I was aware of all the factors influencing them I could predict their choose with 100% certainty.
|
Hmmm, a very classical view of the world. However it is thought that at the atomic level matter does not behave in a predictable fashion. If you accept that most of the motivations that drive us are created on the molecular level, even a perfect knowledge of the starting position of each atom in each molecule would not allow us to know with any certainty what will happen in a very short time.
To suppose you can scale this up to predict what a whole organism would do is a leap not at all supported by any work to date. Well besides that that uses well out of position star and planetary alignments, or the innards of fish.
h |
I agree with your argument and I pesume you're referirng to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (in bold above). Incidentally I often think that principle is a strong indication that there can be no such thing as an omniscient god.
However the fact that you will never be able to completely predict a person's behavior does not negate the possibilty of all behavior being genetically controlled. Since the expression of genes can alter according to enviroment the fact that we can never predict the enviroment intrduces the element of uncertainty required by Heisenbergs Principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Without reading anything in the thread, I can confirm that free will is an illusion.
Everything is an illusion. |
What do you mean by "everything is an illusion?" Do you consider nothing to be physical? Please explain. I am having a hard time understanding how a materialistic atheist (assuming you are) can believe that everything is an illusion. I thought this was the type of absurdity reserved for us religious freaks~
Peace |
Your perceptions of things aren't the things themselves - not even your own internal processes. Everything we know has been processed through biological sensory systems, and isn't what we think it is, in the same way that a photograph isn't what it represents. The map is not the territory.
I'm not saying that nothing matters, however. |
But you can't have a perception without there being something to cause the perception the same way you can't have a photograph without there being a subject to photograph.
What we can't know is how accurate our interpretation of the perception is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Woah. Deep thread.
| Quote: |
| The bottom line is the more I know about someone the easier it is to predict which choice they will make in the future. The only thing limiting my certainty in predicting their choose is my lack of knowledge. If I was aware of all the factors influencing them I could predict their choose with 100% certainty. |
True, knowledge would help us in making increasingly accurate predictions about what an individual is likely to do. But I do not see how knowledge curtails or indicates lack of free will; I know that my daughter will probably want to eat noodles more than she wants to eat broccoli, but whether I can predict or not, it is still her choice to want noodles, even if her choice is constant and predictable.
| Quote: |
| Scientists have shown that some instinctive behavior is genetically programmed and it's quite likely that all instinctive behavior is similarly programmed |
While that's likely so, it is a jump from there to assert that all decisions are made on instinct. That hasn't been proven by anyone, of course. There may also be conflicting instincts which are resolved by choice and personality, even in animals, I suppose. Picture two male dogs who are both presented with female dogs and food. One dog might prefer the food now and the female later, or vice versa, making choices based on the animal's 'doginality'.
| Quote: |
Incidentally I often think that principle is a strong indication that there can be no such thing as an omniscient god. |
Warning: Theology.
Well, it's been said that Protestants insist on choice already being made, but Protestantism predates Calvin and has a variety of viewpoints on free will. As Protestants generally emphasize the personal relationship between God and the individual, most would likely see a greater role for personal choice and responsibility for choice.
I don't get it, though; I see this argument a lot, that because God knows the future we don't have free will; or here, that because we have free will, God can not be omniscient. But these assumptions suppose a cause and effect relationship that doesn't apply to God, who exists above our limitations of time and space. Thus God knows all human events in the past or future, but this alone does not negate our ability to make choices. To use a crude analogy, if I see the same movie again I know what the characters will do, but I certainly haven't controlled what they do in any way.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
