Free Will

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs Is it me, or is loser becoming less and less sure of his position, that humans are nothing more than biological beings?

That was never my stated position. I challenge you to find one instance of me saying this.

You said that relying on faith is foolish - my belief in the soul is based on faith (duh), so whether you like it or not, you claim that the soul doesn't exist. This is news to me that you claim that you don't know, haha.

Why is so difficult for you fundamentalists to understand that some people can honestly withhold judgement when judgement is not yet due? I hope you and Mouseboy are never on a jury.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname That isn't necessary. I know the compatilist viewpoint very well. In fact, I posted it. Go back and read my quote again.

Forgive me, but I'd rather check myself.

The origin is the will. If it can be shown to exist separately from the molecules themselves, then I think that pretty effectively proves the existence of a soul. Still doesn't make it eternal, or show that it can exist as an entity separate from the physical body, but other things can show that.

Is it me, or is loser becoming less and less sure of his position, that humans are nothing more than biological beings?

All I meant is that you state that there exists a soul. That can be argued with. I state that I don't know. Hard to argue with someone not making a claim.

You said that relying on faith is foolish - my belief in the soul is based on faith (duh), so whether you like it or not, you claim that the soul doesn't exist. This is news to me that you claim that you don't know, haha.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs A compatibilist believes that determinism and libertarianism can coexist. As far as how they coexist, I do not remember, and will have to dig up my philosophy books at a later time. Not now though, I'm writing a paper, and procrastinating by replying to you.

That isn't necessary. I know the compatilist viewpoint very well. In fact, I posted it. Go back and read my quote again.

So if there is something that controls all these molecules, then where is the origin of this control? You can't possibly go back infinitely through the molecular reactions, as the reaction has to originate somewhere, above everything molecular. And if this can be proven, then why do you say that it doesn't prove the existance of free will?

The origin is the will. If it can be shown to exist separately from the molecules themselves, then I think that pretty effectively proves the existence of a soul. Still doesn't make it eternal, or show that it can exist as an entity separate from the physical body, but other things can show that.

On the contrary, that was my exact point - that neither of us has enough knowledge to prove the other wrong, which makes this a discussion, and not a debate.

All I meant is that you state that there exists a soul. That can be argued with. I state that I don't know. Hard to argue with someone not making a claim.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname Isn't that exactly what the compatilist viewpoint is? If an action originates in your psyche, then it is free? If you wish to add that the psyche is an immaterial soul, feel free, but it needn't be.

A compatibilist believes that determinism and libertarianism can coexist. As far as how they coexist, I do not remember, and will have to dig up my philosophy books at a later time. Not now though, I'm writing a paper, and procrastinating by replying to you.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Once we know what is really going on in the brain, we should be able to answer this question. It needn't remain a mystery, and we needn't rely on faith, which I just find to be foolish. We know the way neuropeptides and other transmitters should behave and we can observe the actions that come from their interactions with receptors. If it can be shown that they are somehow being controlled, and this is not far-fetched, in fact a lot already suggests this, then it shows a seat of consciousness that is more than simply intermolecular interactions. Even this doesn't really prove the existence of any free will that denies determinism, as there is no proof that your "soul" isn't behaving in a determined manner, but it goes a long way. It certainly gets rid of material determinism. This will be the first step in understanding the self in a scientific manner, getting rid of all the mysticism and obfuscation that has clouded true understanding over the millenia.

So if there is something that controls all these molecules, then where is the origin of this control? You can't possibly go back infinitely through the molecular reactions, as the reaction has to originate somewhere, above everything molecular. And if this can be proven, then why do you say that it doesn't prove the existance of free will?

I have not stated a disbelief. There is nothing to disprove. You are the one claiming to have knowledge on this matter. I only claim curiosity. I keep an open mind to all possibilities.

On the contrary, that was my exact point - that neither of us has enough knowledge to prove the other wrong, which makes this a discussion, and not a debate.

[Anonymouse]

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Once we know what is really going on in the brain, we should be able to answer this question. It needn't remain a mystery, and we needn't rely on faith, which I just find to be foolish.

You still haven't abandoned this line have you? Moreover, this suggests that at one point, with all the money and research we will know "all that there is to know", because we are imperfect, we will never know everything, thus we believe. Moreover science itself is akin to a religion. Fadix in another forum reacted insecurely when I suggested this, and you did the same here. It is no more a belief to believe it all originates in the brain, than it is to believe it emanates from soul. Your belief in evolution is all faith, so when you say "we needn't rely on faith", I myself find that foolish.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs This has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe that free will exists, since all my thoughts and actions originate in my mind. No matter what the situation, I always have a choice.

Isn't that exactly what the compatilist viewpoint is? If an action originates in your psyche, then it is free? If you wish to add that the psyche is an immaterial soul, feel free, but it needn't be.

However, when we look at it from the deterministic point of view, it seems so, doesn't it? Again, we go back to the explained vs. unexplained, the biological form vs. the soul. That article that Anon just posted ("what it means to be human") provided, what I felt, was an appropriate metaphor. Just because it cannot be explained does not mean that it does not exist, which is what you imply when I bring forth discussion of the soul. Damn, all these ideas are so tightly intertwined, sheesh.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Once we know what is really going on in the brain, we should be able to answer this question. It needn't remain a mystery, and we needn't rely on faith, which I just find to be foolish. We know the way neuropeptides and other transmitters should behave and we can observe the actions that come from their interactions with receptors. If it can be shown that they are somehow being controlled, and this is not far-fetched, in fact a lot already suggests this, then it shows a seat of consciousness that is more than simply intermolecular interactions. Even this doesn't really prove the existence of any free will that denies determinism, as there is no proof that your "soul" isn't behaving in a determined manner, but it goes a long way. It certainly gets rid of material determinism. This will be the first step in understanding the self in a scientific manner, getting rid of all the mysticism and obfuscation that has clouded true understanding over the millenia.

Again, no one is going to prove anything in these discussions - we are merely doing that, discussing. As I've said before, while you do not believe in the soul, I do, but neither of us can prove the other wrong...we can simply discuss our ideas.

I have not stated a disbelief. There is nothing to disprove. You are the one claiming to have knowledge on this matter. I only claim curiosity. I keep an open mind to all possibilities.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname Then you believe free will is a logical impossibility?

This has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe that free will exists, since all my thoughts and actions originate in my mind. No matter what the situation, I always have a choice.

However, when we look at it from the deterministic point of view, it seems so, doesn't it? Again, we go back to the explained vs. unexplained, the biological form vs. the soul. That article that Anon just posted ("what it means to be human") provided, what I felt, was an appropriate metaphor. Just because it cannot be explained does not mean that it does not exist, which is what you imply when I bring forth discussion of the soul. Damn, all these ideas are so tightly intertwined, sheesh.

Again, no one is going to prove anything in these discussions - we are merely doing that, discussing. As I've said before, while you do not believe in the soul, I do, but neither of us can prove the other wrong...we can simply discuss our ideas.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs Look above - I added on to my post.

As far as the definition of free goes, there was no room for it. Actions are either determined or not determined, and in either case, actions are not considered free.

Then you believe free will is a logical impossibility?

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname You didn't offer a definition of "free." You only asked the question. I answered it. Well, Stace did. I'm only repeating from his book.

Look above - I added on to my post.

As far as the definition of free goes, there was no room for it. Actions are either determined or not determined, and in either case, actions are not considered free.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs That basically repeated what I said, except my response was more concise.

You didn't offer a definition of "free." You only asked the question. I answered it. Well, Stace did. I'm only repeating from his book.