#31
RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 22nd, 2006
Beethoven was a genius and his source of inspiration of a higher order than his contemporaries. Inspiration has no attachment to free will.
1631 others browsing the Canadian Forums! Join us!The nature of free will...
#32
Re: RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 22nd, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone
Actually, I am playing the devil's advocate here. I too, think or rather hope that we are influencing the chemical reactions in the brain. I hope, because otherwise life would be pointless if it was all just a random response to external forces, no more steered than a rock pulled down a mountain by gravity.Quote: Originally Posted by fuzzylogixThat is not what I said. I said that I ( and many other people ) PERCEIVE Beethoven's 9th, 5th, 3rd etc as brilliant, but WHY I perceive it as brilliant is a difficult concept. How and WHY do our brains convert the chaotic sequence of auditory stimuli into chemical reactions that produce a feeling of ecstasy via production of endorphins? It is all a sequence of chemical reactions by which our neurons function.
Quote has been trimmed
Choices in the brain are all chemical reactions. Your question I think, is: Can we independently direct our chemical reactions to occur, or are they random chemical reactions resulting in response to external stimuli?Sorry if I implied you couldn't appreciate the beauty of Beethoven's music...
What we fundamentally disagree on is the nature of the symphony itself. From your point of view, chaos rules, and Beethoven had no form of free will... So the symphony is a "chaotic sequence of auditory stimuli"...
But it's obvious to me that Beethoven's symphonies are NOT a chaotic sequence of auditory stimuli, in the same way the programming codes of the computer softwares you are using right now are not chaotic,but rather highly structured in order to achieve a task.
I believe in some form of chaos but not ONLY chaos. There is also order and structure...
#33
RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 22nd, 2006
Well we always need a devil's advocate...
I freely admit my belief in free will... But I realize it is a belief... I don't know free will exists as a fact. But the absence of free will would indeed seem totally pointless...
The best way for me to understand this problem is with the image of someone swimming in a river. The river's current is the huge flow of determinisms that affect us, but we nonetheless have the power to swim in any direction we choose to... with or against the current...
I freely admit my belief in free will... But I realize it is a belief... I don't know free will exists as a fact. But the absence of free will would indeed seem totally pointless...
The best way for me to understand this problem is with the image of someone swimming in a river. The river's current is the huge flow of determinisms that affect us, but we nonetheless have the power to swim in any direction we choose to... with or against the current...
#34
RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 22nd, 2006
May none of us be swept downstream....
unless of course, we WANT to be....
unless of course, we WANT to be....
#35
RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 23rd, 2006
creativity has a tendancy to happen spontaneously when it's quashed. In places where people's freedom is restricted and expression is discouraged or even forbidden, people will even risk their lives to express themselves. Now I don't claim to know the source of that creativity. As fuzzylogix said, it's all a result of chemical reactions. This is proven to be true, but maybe doesnt preclude the existance of free will.
The fact is i don't know if i have free will...
The fact is i don't know if i have free will...
#36
Re: RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 25th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone
(Cracks knuckles and wiggles fingers over keyboard ... bwahahahaha ... it is my will to involve myself here! I freely admit my belief in free will... But I realize it is a belief... I don't know free will exists as a fact. But the absence of free will would indeed seem totally pointless...
The best way for me to understand this problem is with the image of someone swimming in a river. The river's current is the huge flow of determinisms that affect us, but we nonetheless have the power to swim in any direction we choose to... with or against the current...
)s_lone ... I love the analogy of the river. Well put. Have you read Richard Bach's "Illusions"? Your comment reminds me of the preface to that gem.
I vividly recall my first debate about free will. My grade 12 English teacher (whom I was madly in love with and spent hours sitting on his couch at his home listening to his wisdom!) and I got into a debate about it. He said there was no free will. I said there was. I was 17 years old, vehemently learning to stretch my independence muscles at the time.
Here I sit 30 years later and my feelings have not changed. Either I haven't got past that teenage rebellion stage or I have learned something along the way to support the concept of free will.
I maintain that we do, indeed, have free will. Whether we choose to exercise it or not dictates our path through the world. Yes, too much free will and you end up in a small cell in a prison but a dash of it and you end up with Mondrian and Picasso and Bosch paintings. Your point about creativity, s_lone, is one I agree with absolutely.
The stand my old teacher took was that because we have laws and caveats all around us, and that those restricted free will. My position was that those were illusionary boundaries and if we were willing to accept the consequences of our actions, we could do anything we chose to do.
I still maintain that. I'm of the school that free will is necessary for moral responsibility, for creativity and for fulfillment. These are the things that set us apart from the rest of the mammals, imho. We have a choice and that defines us. The consequences of our choices affect our decisions, but the decisions themselves are of our will.
Most excellent topic, s_lone!
#37
RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 25th, 2006
Does masturbation come under the category
of Free Will ?
Excercising the right of Entropy on all discussions
as mentioned in another thread.
of Free Will ?
Excercising the right of Entropy on all discussions
as mentioned in another thread.
#38
RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 25th, 2006
masturbation is impossible to avoid. therefore done under duress... if only the duress of your own hormones
#41
Re: RE: The nature of free will...
Sep 25th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone
Quote: Originally Posted by fuzzylogixYou never took any important decisions in your life?We are all mere collections of chemical reactions creating outcomes that are determined by the physical forces around us. Having self determination means only that sometimes certain chemical reactions and interactions preempt others leading to different outcomes.
So, in summary, no, I am not responsible for any of my actions.
I think all his important decisions were ruled by 'chemical reactions' that created outcomes determined by physical forces...
So he is not responsible unless he can alter the chemical reactions, which I may add is done everyday, by addicts who will tell you they are not responsible for their actions due to some sort of impairment from a chemical, like drugs or alcohol. We are in control of what we do. It is only the variables, actions of others, that change our outcomes. These variables are infinate so it really seems that we are not responsible. Although everyone's actions afect all others, so we are in control. For example the flutter of a butterfly's wing is felt around the world.. ?
#43
Re: The nature of free will...
Jan 18th, 2007
Hi everyone,
I am jumping in here rather late,I by no means have it all worked out, but perhaps a different perspective.It was Hume who first questioned our common sense about cause and effect.He stated that it was only the habit of mind which noticed one occurance preceding another,and thus linked them and allowed of prediction.We have no apparent reason--for Hume's challenge remains unanswered----to assume that we know the force or power of this relationship.In considering free will I believe it profitable to disreguard the concept of cause and effect and make some assumptions of our own.When you are placed [however that may have come about] within a context, which everything must be according to relativity,then you are defined by that context,and all possiabilities are possiabilities for reaction to said context.If you decide to act/do or you decide to remain passive, both are of necessity,reaction.
We do have free will I believe,if like some of you here you define it as,having a greater choice than the other animals.No matter how many alternative choices of reaction you might have,it necessarily is in response to your context---the physcial world.Well,some might say we have the ability to alter dramatically our context,yes that is quite true,but that too is a reaction to it.This altered context then will be what you react to,but always context defines----------in this sense,there is no free will! Necessity dictates,and in the relational sense,adaptation to context is of necessity."Subject and object stand or fall together."Schopenhaur
I am headed for the light on God's back porch!!
I am jumping in here rather late,I by no means have it all worked out, but perhaps a different perspective.It was Hume who first questioned our common sense about cause and effect.He stated that it was only the habit of mind which noticed one occurance preceding another,and thus linked them and allowed of prediction.We have no apparent reason--for Hume's challenge remains unanswered----to assume that we know the force or power of this relationship.In considering free will I believe it profitable to disreguard the concept of cause and effect and make some assumptions of our own.When you are placed [however that may have come about] within a context, which everything must be according to relativity,then you are defined by that context,and all possiabilities are possiabilities for reaction to said context.If you decide to act/do or you decide to remain passive, both are of necessity,reaction.
We do have free will I believe,if like some of you here you define it as,having a greater choice than the other animals.No matter how many alternative choices of reaction you might have,it necessarily is in response to your context---the physcial world.Well,some might say we have the ability to alter dramatically our context,yes that is quite true,but that too is a reaction to it.This altered context then will be what you react to,but always context defines----------in this sense,there is no free will! Necessity dictates,and in the relational sense,adaptation to context is of necessity."Subject and object stand or fall together."Schopenhaur
I am headed for the light on God's back porch!!
Last edited by boagie; Jan 18th, 2007 at 11:28 AM..Reason: whim
Similar Threads
10
11
15
0
CCIM © 2011. All rights reserved.
About CC | Contact Us | Terms of Service | Archive
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
About CC | Contact Us | Terms of Service | Archive
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.