--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his > > > own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally > > > posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different > > > tack on the subject: > > > > > > You Do Not Choose What You Choose > > > > > > Many readers continue to find my position on free will > > > bewildering. > > > > > > As I have suggested about other believers in the > > lack of free will here (and that they have failed > > to reply to), if they are so convinced that there > > is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to > > convince others (whom they insist have no free will) > > to change their minds and embrace the "no free will" > > position? > > > > If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter > > and his ability to decide for free will or against > > it are not his own. The decision was made for him. > > Really? (as in SNL "Really!!??") Are you suggesting that its only one of two > discrete possibilities. Either: 1) one is totally independent of any > outside or internal sub conscious forces makes decisions or 2) some entity > makes the decisions and then tells him what to do? (I know "mother is at > home", but is she calling all the shots?
I wonder if we are meaning the same thing by the term "free will". I would venture that if, generally speaking, someone could only conceive of the above two discrete options, then they have very little actual free will -- though perhaps scads of imaginary free will. If there are 100 options and one is only aware of, or can only conceive of, two of them, he has very little free will IMO. EVEN if he can freely choose among the two options. He is so bound up in his limited world, he has no idea how much free will he doesn't have. I don't think that you are necessarily looking at a micro set of all possible options (though we all are to a degree). We don't know what we don't know. For example, say a guy has boiled it down to three things: eating , sleeping and f*ing. And he has total free will to chose what he wants to do in this and each moment: eat, sleep or F. I don't think this guy has much free will at all but he is going to think that he has total free will. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. We all don't know what we don't know. And then, even if we are fully aware of all options (an impossible or terribly rare state, IMO) do we really chose among them in a totally free, unbiased, untrained, culture-free way? I think not (but that is probably just my cultural, educational, and life experience bias speaking). Let me ask some questions that may clarify some of the points I have been attempting to make. *Does someone who has worked full time, full heart into it, for TMO for 20 years, an has no just left, do they have total free will to see things as they are? (Not if FFL is representative, IMO). *Someone who has large unfulfilled ego needs and thus bashes everyone insight to make them feel better about themselves. Does this person have much free will? *Someone sees a post and just HAS to respond. Do they have much free-will? *Two high school chums go in different directions. One goes to Harvard, the other goes lives in a small cabin high in the Rockies and explores and rejoices in nature each and every minute. After 4-5 years, does each enjoy the same free will? I would suggest that any free will they do experience (or feel that they do) will be of quite a different type, two barely intersecting sets of free-will. Each has taken a path that has opened up lots of options and also has closed off a lot of options. Each has quite different sets of (perceived) free will (if any or much at all in reality). *A sports fan during playoffs. Do they have much free will NOT to watch them? *Eva Greene walks into a bar, alone, an sits next to you at the bar. do you have ANY free-will at that moment? Do you really have the free will to get up and walk away. >(Cut to old aspirin commercial "Mother! I would rather do it myself!!")) > > Do you consider your culture, family, education, training, career, to have > any effect in molding, shaping or filtering your, or anyone's, thoughts as > to what the "best thing" to do in any moment is? > > Are you, or anyone, conscious of every single normally (in we mere mortals) > subconscious process that shapes our thoughts, impulses, motivations and > desires? > > If not, then I suggest we do not have full free will -- and yet there is no > "entity" that has made our decisions for us. Is it not true that some posters > have no free in that they have not choice but to respond to your proddings? > > The degree of freewill that we have appears to be the issue: a) some, b) a > little or c) none. Total Free will is not an option, IMO. > > Given that the intellect is generally the inner "deciding" mechanism (perhaps > along with "gut" or intuition) are what we normally perceive to be the agents > of free will. But how free is the intellect? It has been uber trained, > conditioned, programmed and pavloved to act in specific, complex ways (of and > for which we are no longer fully conscious of the inner processes). > Personally, I don't see huge amounts of ACTUAL free will -- though I concede > its very easy to see a lot of imaginary free will i our decisions and actions. > > Perhaps you have transcended all outer and inner conditioning, training, > programming, influences, culture, etc and make each decision > in totally fresh and independent ways, free of any axioms or postulates as > to how the world works, looking at each new problems and its solution outside > the context of any history or other events. I have not achieved that state -- > and frankly, not sure I care for it. > > I do agree with your attachment theme. With less attachment, and the ability > to go with what is happening in each moment, not tied to needed, desired, or > "out to be" outcomes, one is "freer". However, even that is not real Free > Will, IMO. (Did I get that right mother/god/dictating entity? I seem to be > hard of hearing this morning as you dictate my every word and impulse.) :) > > > > > > > > He at no point had the ability to "choose what he > > chose." > > > > If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit > > perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing > > with his position *also* have no free will. Just > > like him, they also at no point had the ability > > to "choose what they chose." > > > > So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or > > *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will > > to choose to change their minds as a result of > > reading it? > > > > Something in this scenario doth not compute. > > > > > > > Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some > > > combination of the following claims: > > > > > > 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, > > > physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain > > > (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. > > > > > > 2. You admit that mental eventsâ"like choices, efforts, > > > intentions, reasoning, etcâ"cause certain of our actions. > > > But such mental states presuppose free will for their very > > > existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we > > > are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such > > > thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. > > > > > > 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of > > > unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. > > > Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously > > > or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact > > > that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of > > > my actions does not negate free will. > > > > > > All of these objections express confusion about my basic > > > premise. The first is simply falseâ"my argument against > > > free will does not require philosophical materialism. There > > > is no question that (most) mental events are the product of > > > physical eventsâ"but even if the human mind were part soul- > > > stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious > > > operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the > > > unconscious physiology of your brain does. > > > > > > Continues: > > > http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/ > > >
