Uh... You're seperating your self from the external world. You're not getting the correct vision of determinism. What determinism boils down to is that everything you are going to do from this point on could be predicted, had all the information in the universe at some point in time been taken. I.e. had all the information of everyparticle at 2 seconds after the big bang been taken, I could predict everything you are going to say for the rest of your life.
MORE poor quality, partly regurgitated yet mainly confused philosophy that retains just enough blind ambiguity to seem 'profound.'
But at least it has been sold for its deserving price on youtube :D
Another disciple for Nietzsche. (But didn't he tell you guys to disperse and forget him in TSZ?)
For the record, I love reading Nietzsche, his work is inspiring. I just lack your assumed wisdom when it comes to placing him above other philosophers on whom I am sure you also lecture.
First off the determinist position is not merely the assertion that because we have no soul we have no free will. So that's a bit of a straw man right there.
The determinist argument against free will is that causality does not allow for free will and not that causality doesn't allow for a soul and therefor it doesn't allow for free will. The existence of an immaterial soul or dualist mind or what have you is not something that would fall into the realm of determinism. The soul could be an epiphenomenon for example and not subject then to the laws of causality. I do not believe in the soul, but I am just making a point.
You used the phrase "our illusion of self" and then went on to say "when 'we' make a decision". Then you say that all of the internal causal factors that went into making the decision "are part of our self"
So by self here you are not being clear whether you are referring to our "illusion of self" or the brain that is producing the illusion of self.
When you say "we are causing ourselves to act" I do not follow you. You mean our brains (and yes I know we are our brains) are causing our bodies to act? Or do you mean our brains are causing our brains to act?
-you say that humans are wholly physical beings governed by causality.
-You say that because we are our brain and our body it does not make sense to assert that something done by our brain and body (without any external coercion) was not done of our own free will.
---------
Here is why this is not an adequate definition of free will.
Free will requires that you could choose either of the two options being presented to you, but if you are predetermined by infinitely complex prior internal and external causality to choose one then it is only an illusion of choice.
The fact that it is you acting out the behavior and experiencing the illusion of volition while doing it, is not sufficient to describe it as free will.
It seems to me that you are only describing the fact that we are our brain. This does not mean that that brain has the capacity or free will though. If the brain/body that we are is driven by causality and our conscious experience is an illusion of self, then while you can say that we are the behaviors of our brain/body you cannot conclude that we have free will. To have free will we must be able to choose our behaviors.
Our brain is part of our "self" as is our body. So when the brain causes the body to act, we cause our "self" to act. The self is the illusion of ego brought about by consciousness. When we speak we use simplistic language, when the brain (part of the self) causes the body (also part of the self) to act voluntarily, we use the term "free will" to describe the process of "the self causing self action."
BTW Determinism assumes no soul, it assumes a naturalistic consciousness as the predicate.
Well I think in the interests of clarity you should not be using the same word (self) to describe both the physical self and the "illusion of self" that is an abstraction created by the physical self. I understand that we are both the body and its abstraction, but it is difficult to understand you when you say the self causes the self to act? You see what I mean?
I agree, i dont think the two are exclusive either. Yes our brains have determined or at least probable functions, tendencies, but we are also free will agants, at least as a conglomerate entity. Very good.
Thanks, I think people get to caught up in labels and don't really think about the implications of their words. What would free will be if it wasn't caused?
Uh... You're seperating your self from the external world. You're not getting the correct vision of determinism. What determinism boils down to is that everything you are going to do from this point on could be predicted, had all the information in the universe at some point in time been taken. I.e. had all the information of everyparticle at 2 seconds after the big bang been taken, I could predict everything you are going to say for the rest of your life.
HelloBrainMind 2 years ago
BOO YEAH!!!
MORE poor quality, partly regurgitated yet mainly confused philosophy that retains just enough blind ambiguity to seem 'profound.'
But at least it has been sold for its deserving price on youtube :D
Another disciple for Nietzsche. (But didn't he tell you guys to disperse and forget him in TSZ?)
For the record, I love reading Nietzsche, his work is inspiring. I just lack your assumed wisdom when it comes to placing him above other philosophers on whom I am sure you also lecture.
YouIdiot1991 2 years ago
I don't believe we have a "self". We are "becoming" or "not-yet-a-self". The existential interpretation I think is correct.
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
Well the whole idea of ego is an illusion of consciousness but it is just as much an illusion as the will.
As Nietzsche said, Man is something to be overcome, a bridge to be crossed.
LifeIsPietzsche 3 years ago
Read Kierkegaard.
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
Nietzsche > Kierkegaard.
LifeIsPietzsche 3 years ago
First off the determinist position is not merely the assertion that because we have no soul we have no free will. So that's a bit of a straw man right there.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
The determinist argument against free will is that causality does not allow for free will and not that causality doesn't allow for a soul and therefor it doesn't allow for free will. The existence of an immaterial soul or dualist mind or what have you is not something that would fall into the realm of determinism. The soul could be an epiphenomenon for example and not subject then to the laws of causality. I do not believe in the soul, but I am just making a point.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
You used the phrase "our illusion of self" and then went on to say "when 'we' make a decision". Then you say that all of the internal causal factors that went into making the decision "are part of our self"
So by self here you are not being clear whether you are referring to our "illusion of self" or the brain that is producing the illusion of self.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
When you say "we are causing ourselves to act" I do not follow you. You mean our brains (and yes I know we are our brains) are causing our bodies to act? Or do you mean our brains are causing our brains to act?
shameoncanada 3 years ago
Here is what I think you are saying.
-you say that humans are wholly physical beings governed by causality.
-You say that because we are our brain and our body it does not make sense to assert that something done by our brain and body (without any external coercion) was not done of our own free will.
---------
Here is why this is not an adequate definition of free will.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
Free will requires that you could choose either of the two options being presented to you, but if you are predetermined by infinitely complex prior internal and external causality to choose one then it is only an illusion of choice.
The fact that it is you acting out the behavior and experiencing the illusion of volition while doing it, is not sufficient to describe it as free will.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
It seems to me that you are only describing the fact that we are our brain. This does not mean that that brain has the capacity or free will though. If the brain/body that we are is driven by causality and our conscious experience is an illusion of self, then while you can say that we are the behaviors of our brain/body you cannot conclude that we have free will. To have free will we must be able to choose our behaviors.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
Our brain is part of our "self" as is our body. So when the brain causes the body to act, we cause our "self" to act. The self is the illusion of ego brought about by consciousness. When we speak we use simplistic language, when the brain (part of the self) causes the body (also part of the self) to act voluntarily, we use the term "free will" to describe the process of "the self causing self action."
BTW Determinism assumes no soul, it assumes a naturalistic consciousness as the predicate.
LifeIsPietzsche 3 years ago
Well I think in the interests of clarity you should not be using the same word (self) to describe both the physical self and the "illusion of self" that is an abstraction created by the physical self. I understand that we are both the body and its abstraction, but it is difficult to understand you when you say the self causes the self to act? You see what I mean?
shameoncanada 3 years ago
I agree, i dont think the two are exclusive either. Yes our brains have determined or at least probable functions, tendencies, but we are also free will agants, at least as a conglomerate entity. Very good.
FarFromEquilibrium 3 years ago
Thanks, I think people get to caught up in labels and don't really think about the implications of their words. What would free will be if it wasn't caused?
LifeIsPietzsche 3 years ago