by Terry 159 Replies latest jw friends
A boulder has no self-preservation. Avoiding falling by grabbing a branch is self-preservation. What we call a no-brainer. Snowboarding skill is but an outgrowth of not-crashing-and-maybe-killing-myself.
Humans also choose to engage in risky behavior. Snowboarding turning isn't always about not crashing. Sometimes people ignore self preservation and save others instead.
Why would someone 99 times out of a hundres save themselves and then sometimes choose the exact opposite?
I am saying that no randomness exists only seeming unpredictible chaos.
So it might as well be random, then. If we cannot predict it and it's chaotic, then, for all practical purposes, it might as well be random.
Well, it sure is easy to just point and laugh without giving your own examples to prove your own point (so that I can point and laugh :)
Besides nay-saying--what reasoned argument do you offer?
You're the one that put your hypothesis up for inspection, not me. I am not responsible for your flawed example. Think of this like you are a student defending your thesis. You are required to defend why what you wrote is correct. If your professor points out a flawed conclusion you draw, you can't turn around and say "oh yeah? well how would you say it then? if I am wrong, you do a better job!". This kind of argument only detracts from your debating skills.
You might want to read up on "thought experiment" and come up with another example as opposed to trying to task me with coming up with one.
Terry, I am no sure how much you have read up on QM, but randomness and indetermination give very physical effects in QM. For example, Heisenbergers uncertainty principle will break apart the lattice in frozen He4 under the right preasure (the point can be calculated!), and like JWoods said, Bells theorem (and experimental verification in quantum optics! read it it is right out of star trek!) put some very, very rash constraints on a 'deterministic' theory, iirc it would have to be a 'global variable theory' which would be pretty nasty...
Personally, I think the point is pretty moot: I think we are just the chemistry in the brain, so choice is just whatever that chemistry does. if the chemistry is deterministic or not will not give me a fuzzy feeling :-).
If something is "free" it is not controlled.
A will is something controlled.
A will to perform an action is a controlled will once that action is taken.
We all agree that not all actions are possible even if we are bound and determined to carry out our will.
What those limits, obstacles, impediments and unforeseen barriers consist of are IMPORTANT to our discussion.
Why?
They only have to be unknown, unforeseen and/or unknowable to make the supposed "freedom" of our will irrelevent.
At some point the impossibility of our will (to be carried out) enters the equation, does it not?
At least the "freedom to will" certainly does (when hampered by an unknown obstacle.)
If you can grant that unknown impediments to our will are not only possible, but, likely---you have taken the first essential step in eroding
the "free" part of free will.
What about the rest?
Subconscious motives were suggested by Freud. But, even deeper than that, we might suggest vestigial "instinctive" motives may be at work.
Why is one man attracted by redheads whereas another man might not be?
Why does one buyer prefer a Prius to a Hummer?
You can certainly follow chains of suggested "causes" for your reasoning. But, just past that event horizon of "known" motives, causes, determining factors lies the unknown.
It is in the unknown (to us personally--not unknowable) region where much of our so-called CHOICE is at work.
If you've ever played a lightning round of word-association you know there are obvious answers and also surprisingly weird answers.
Those "associations" go deeper than conscious thought!
Let us consider the genetic "information" contained in the mind of the GENIUS.
There are math geniuses who come from ridiculous isolated surroundings who may be idiots otherwise--yet--can perform astounding calculations faster than a hand calbulator. Ask yourself what "choice" is involved in this ability!
The range of human genetic influence cannot be limited to the occasional genius or serial-killer as a statistical flux.
I'm asserting that WHY we do what we do when we do it---is NOT actually known by us at all. We put a fiction on it and assure ourselves WE are doing it for cause and for reason and by CHOICE.
The IQ curve, the ideal, bell-shaped form approached by the graph of scores on the horizontal and numbers of scores on the vertical. Average, or 100, is at the maximum. Alfred Binet applied the term "genius" to a small area to the far right.
YOU MAY FIND THIS INTERESTING:
The finding of rising heritability with age is counter-intuitive; it is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. According to work by Robert Plomin, heritability estimates calculated on infant samples are as low as 20%, rising to around 40% in middle childhood, and ultimately as high as 80% in adult samples in the United StatesThis suggests that the underlying genes actually express themselves by affecting a person's predisposition to build, learn, and develop mental abilities throughout the lifespan.
R. Plomin et al.Behavioral Genetics (4th edn ed.), Worth Publishers (2001).
They only have to be unknown, unforeseen and/or unknowable to make the supposed "freedom" of our will irrelevent.
"Free will" or, as you want to call it, "controlled will", is not measured by accomplishment, but rather, by the freedom and ability to attempt accomplishment.
If you can grant that unknown impediments to our will are not only possible, but, likely---you have taken the first essential step in eroding the "free" part of free will.
Again you misunderstand what free will is. You are starting with a misunderstanding of the idea and then proceed to an erroneous conclusion. Free will does not in ANY way imply accomplishment.
I'm asserting that WHY we do what we do when we do it---is NOT actually known by us at all. We put a fiction on it and assure ourselves WE are doing it for cause and for reason and by CHOICE.
Part of it is, part of it isn't, part of it partially is. I don't think anyone is surprised or shocked by that. That's pretty well known (and somewhat different from your original assertion that there was no such thing as free will. A will can be free, even if we don't fully understand why we made the decision we did.)
Free will does not in ANY way imply accomplishment.
To WILL is to accomplish the act of willing, is it not?
"it is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. "
What I would like to see instead of the bell-shaped IQ curve, which is reflective of what percentage of the general population has a certain IQ, is at what rate intelligence increases as IQ increases. I would bet money it is on a non-linear scale.
The point I'm making is that if it is non-linear, then someone with a substantially higher IQ than average might see an exponentially higher figurative return-on-investment as they gain education and experience in life. (Disclaimer: that doesn't mean they're going to put it to beneficial use.) This would mean the influence of genetics would be more and more pronounced as one ages.
"Free will" or, as you want to call it, "controlled will", is not measured by accomplishment, but rather, by the freedom and ability to attempt accomplishment.
How about FREE SPEECH? Is it still "free" speech if you only "attempt" to accomplish it?
Do you think about what you are posting before you press "submit"?
