In favor of determinism I find that almost everything I believe is something that I discover I believe as opposed to any rational decision I’ve made to believe it. As I mulled over the idea of free-will not existing these last few days, I find that I continue to drive my car, walk here and there, make coffee and generally do and act however I’m going to act regardless of what I happen to be thinking about.
On the other hand, this part of me that controls my internal dialog also appears to be the same part that initiates speaking. I cannot seem to have an internal and external dialog simultaneously. Speaking is definitely a data point that alters the facts of existence and hence changes the informational content of my brain. That I have spoken is a fact and what I said must be noted by even the most deterministic brain. It is both an output and an input. Speaking is so closely related to my internal dialog that, to my mind, it must be that my internal dialog then is also both an input and an output to what I believe.
If free-will does not exist then it appears that I am a simulation which is run by my brain. I am not a simulation that is run without regards to its inputs and outputs. If the outputs are ignored the simulation is valueless. If the inputs are wrong then the outputs are faulty. Simulations are usually run so that parameters can be varied and the new output examined. Some part of me allows those parameters to be changed and not just randomly but in a meaningful way. I see no reason to disbelieve that the same part of my brain that is responsible for internal dialog is also responsible for how the parameters of my simulated self are altered. I can also see how these parameters can be made meaningful merely by trial and error and more successful thoughts replacing less successful ones over time.
If I have free will, then it seems to me it is not so free as to dictate my beliefs. It is only free to vary parameters to the simulation I call my “self” which is what I eventually enact if the rest of my system agrees. If I have no free will, then the part of the brain which is involved in the simulation that is my “self” is still responsible for providing realistic inputs and outputs for the rest of my brain. It seems “I” have a purpose either way.
"I"
by IronGland 6 Replies latest jw friends
-
IronGland
-
wanderlustguy
Free will is like anything else, there are limitations. You can do whatever you want, but there is a point where your patterns developed as a result of previous choices will step in or be apparent, like pressing the button on the coffee maker because you always do it on the way to the bathroom in the morning. It doesn't mean that action is no longer a result of free will...you have just chosen to do it so many times it has become...habit.
-
skyman
We don't have free will because our brain is hard wired so as not to let us. For ex: try to stop breathing we can't because we pass out and we will breath again in order to stop breathing we must put a plastic bag over our head and make it so our hands can not remove it. So we don't really have free will. The best we can do is admit this and try to understand what our brain is. There are really two different realities within us that really controles us will win every time unless we take actions to prevent this from happening. That is why some many Witnesses don't leave their brain will not alllow them to make the leap that the individual all ready knows he should.
-
Winston Smith :>D
I didn't know Bradley was allowed to have two accounts???
-
IronGland
I didn't know Bradley was allowed to have two accounts???
He began to mimick me soon after joining this site.
-
Winston Smith :>D
I didn't know Bradley was allowed to have two accounts???
He began to mimick me soon after joining this site.You need to talk more about sex if you think he is copying you Although... "Those that don't, talk about it." Perhaps you're are in the first group, while Bradley is in the latter
-
Narkissos
Interesting post as ever.
I think the whole issue has been completely modified by the psychoanalytic approach, which shows any "I" to be a construct -- or at least to exist and move within a definite structure (whether the Es, Ich and Überich of Freud or the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary of Lacan). Whatever "I" do, say or think emerges from an unconscious depth and is simultaneously projected on an ideal firmament. "I" am never a completely free (or determined, for that matter) monadic dot interacting with "others" on a two-dimension plane.
I also think you are right on with your remarks on language: output is input as well. Ratio is logos.
One text I find fascinating in the OT, in this respect, is Habakkuk 2:1:
I will stand at my watchpost,
Many translations modify the last Hebrew line to read "what he will answer" (along with the Syriac version). However, the traditional Masoretic text which has the first person, whether original or not, is much more meaningful imo: the prophet is looking for "God's answer" within his own words.
and station myself on the rampart;
I will keep watch to see what he (Yhwh) will say to me,
and what I will answer concerning my complaint.