Philosophical Question

[Paianis 488]

Pretty simple: do you believe that everything we do happens by natural processes, or do you believe there is a spirit inside of our physical selves that can influence our behaviour?

There is no middle ground on this so I've left it to the two options. If you're not sure, you don't have to vote.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Paspie

[Envy 6,053]

The question you asked in the title and in the topic is not the same question...

 

I believe in completely natural processes. I don't see any reason to believe in any such thing as a 'soul' or 'spirit'. Our consciousnesses are the results of chemical interactions in our brains, nothing more, nothing less.

 

With that said, can 'free will' even describe the reality? Fate certainly can't either... It's two different questions.

[Cyan Blue 946]

I had to post this, lol.

 

 

It's too easy.

[Pinkamena-Pills 6,838]

Doesn't matter to me really on the poll question. 

 

As far as your question in your op,i believe that we are more than just bags of meat that 'think',but of course if you want to believe such then go ahead,you are no more right than i am in the end.

[Invincible 2,090]

I'm a strong believer in free will. I don't like the concept of fate - i refuse to think a record of events yet to transpire will dictate my future. I will dictate my future.

[OptimisticNeighsayer 471]

Natural Processes.

 

To invoke the idea of an ineffable spirit to explain behavior is a flagrant cop-out in the search for knowledge.  If there is some "spirit", it must have some naturalistic basis.

[Paianis 488]

The question you asked in the title and in the topic is not the same question...

 

I believe in completely natural processes. I don't see any reason to believe in any such thing as a 'soul' or 'spirit'. Our consciousnesses are the results of chemical interactions in our brains, nothing more, nothing less.

 

With that said, can 'free will' even describe the reality? Fate certainly can't either... It's two different questions.

Because if you believe in free will, you have to believe that there is a force that is exempt from the laws of nature.

 

In my opinion the very act of dictating our lives is a natural cause, so there is no reason behind it other than it just is.

 

As for your last point: what could describe reality other than fate?

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

Well the question actually isn't exactly that simple.

 

Determinism states that that everything we do is dictated by natural process.

 

The first definition of fate, however is:

 

1. The development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.

 

So either there is no free-will because of natural reasons or supernatural reasons.

 

Then there is the  Cogito Model of free-will to deal with, which states that there can be free-will that exists outside of metaphysical influence.

 

I think that the Cogito Model is still making a similar mistake in redefining free-will the way Compatibilists do, but it's a debatable issue.

 

Perhaps you should reconsider your poll to take into account these other philosophical view points.

 

A. There is free-will and it's metaphysical

B. There is no free-will and we are fated by supernatural reasons.

C. There is free-will, it's not metaphysical.

D. There is no free-will and everything is determined by physical reasons. (Quantum indeterminacy does not negate determinacy in astrophysics)

 

or

 

E. There is no free-will, but the universe is not determinate either, because Quantum Indeterminacy affects even astrophysics.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Darkseid

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

In Philosophy and Metaphysics, the technical question put more specifically is "Is there free will, or are all decisions determined?" Determinism argues that human beings like all other members of the Universe are complex machines of bio-electrochemistry and all actions and decisions are the result of environments and conditions that existed before we were, and that the ability to choose anything is simply an illusion. An obvious problem raised in the thought is the argument "If we do not have free will, why would we have ever supposed it existed?", which is a pretty damning counterpoint.

 

In Christian theology the not-quite-so-dichotomic question is deciding between Calvinism and Armenianism. Calvinism argues that God predestines events, whereas Armenianism argues that God is intimately involved in the Universe but we are still free to make our own choices. There are logical and illogical extremes of both positions which both sometimes lose reasonable qualities (God has ordained all things even down to the movement of particles, therefore he has already chosen who will go to heaven and who will go to hell-- versus-- God set the Universe in motion and has not interfered with its course ever since) and such extremes are usually considered heretical or untenable. There are smart theologians in both Calvinistic and Armenian theology but between them I can't confidently say I have an opinion apart from hoping Armenianism is true.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Blue

[Invincible 2,090]

That's a very interesting observation. Truly, i'm fine with being a meat-puppet. I'd like to believe however that every living being have at least a Quasi-free will, or a range of free actions that we can control.

[irondreams 31]

Pretty simple: do you believe that everything we do happens by natural processes, or do you believe there is a spirit inside of our physical selves that can influence our behaviour?

 

There is no middle ground on this so I've left it to the two options. If you're not sure, you don't have to vote.

I know that my stuff happens thanks to biological stuff but I love to believe that I have a spirit.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

An obvious problem raised in the thought is the argument "If we do not have free will, why would we have ever supposed it existed?", which is a pretty damning counterpoint.

 

It would seem that it is a damning counter point, but there are explanations to that.

 

 

 

It all seems quite rational, so why is our lack of free will so difficult to accept for many people? Cashmore explains that there are several compelling reasons that people have for believing in free will, not the least of which is that we have a constant awareness of making decisions that seem to be driven by our own volition. In addition, free will is a very useful concept when it comes to the justice system; we take responsibility for our criminal actions and accordingly, are eligible for personal punishment, which is deemed to be necessary for protecting society.

 

However, Cashmore argues that there are deeper explanations for why we think we have free will. He thinks that there must be a genetic basis for consciousness and the associated belief in free will. Consciousness has an evolutionary selective advantage: it provides us with the illusion of responsibility, which is beneficial for society, if not for individuals as well. In this sense, consciousness is our “preview function” that comforts us into thinking that we are in control of what we will (or at least may) do ahead of time. As Cashmore notes, the irony is that the very existence of these "free will genes" is predicated on their ability to con us into believing in free will and responsibility. However, in reality, all behavioral decisions are nothing more than a reflection of our genetic and environmental history.

 

“Whereas the impressions are that we are making ‘free’ conscious decisions, the reality is that consciousness is simply a state of awareness that reflects the input signals, and these are an unavoidable consequence of GES [genes, environment, and stochasticism],” Cashmore explained.

 

-Source

 

The paradox lies in the the fact that if Determinism is true, then our consciousness is an after effect, so naturally we would not be able to detect the determining influences on our choices and will, which gives rise to the perception that these things must happen in of there self and derives from self.

 

It's like if you were to go out on a walk and hear a loud explosion behind you. when you turn around you find a tree has fallen to the ground. Your natural assumption would be that the explosion caused the tree to fall, but the explosion is actually coming from down the block and the tree fell because of termite infestation.

 

A case of mistaken origin.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Darkseid

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

The paradox lies in the the fact that if Determinism is true, then our consciousness is an after effect, so naturally we would not be able to detect the determining influences on our choices and will, which gives rise to the perception that these things must happen in of there self and derives from self.

 

A case of mistaken origin.

But if it is not true, then it is not a case of mistaken origin, so it really depends upon your properly basic belief of the existence of free will. A thing which by-definition must be held or rejected without prior evidence. The canniness of numbers, or existence of external reality are other properly basic beliefs.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

But if it is not true, then it is not a case of mistaken origin, so it really depends upon your properly basic belief of the existence of free will. A thing which by-definition must be held or rejected without prior evidence. The canniness of numbers, or existence of external reality are other properly basic beliefs.

 

Well the key word, of course, is 'if'.

 

We can separate the ideas of free-will from the belief in free-will.

 

Either free-will exists, or it does not.

 

The existence of external reality is self evident.

 

However, if we are going to argue about Epistemology, things are going to get a bit off topic.

[Paianis 488]

I know the poll isn't perfect, I did that on purpose to foster a discussion.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

I know the poll isn't perfect, I did that on purpose to foster a discussion.

 

Without a doubt then, you succeeded.

[lightning-spark 34]

Ok here goes I am going to tale you on a ride through my brain.

 

Echo...... well that sux

 

Anyways I am going to try and explain myself, this is about to get very very confusing.

 

So I believe that there is both fate and free will and neither. Looking at the multiverse theory, every possible choice has happened in at least one reality. If this theory where to be found out to be true it would not prove one theory and disprove the other as every possible choice would have been made. Now for the tricky part to explain. The us in this reality would think that everything happens for a reason but in actual fact ..... my brain is melting.

 

To put it simply. the multiverse theory makes it so inconceivable that either can eXIST aS All actions are occurring, actuallymthat isn't much simpler

 

Sorry I can't put my head around it

[Arctic Night 884]

I am convinced that our choices are determined by natural processes, but this is not the same as "fate."

[Paianis 488]

Gone is the original title and the poll, just to clear up some confusion.

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Blue

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

The only thing in nature that I feel is non-observable (apart from things like the inner workings of quantum mechanics) would be the subjective experience of another person. We can see the neural activity that occurs in the brain, but we will never known what it is like to experience that other persons sensations directly.

 

This thing I refer to is classified in philosophy as qualia, and is the only thing I would consider meta-physical, however, even then I think sub-physical would be a more appropriate word, as I believe that qualia is still the effect of the natural processes of the mind.

 

What bizarre alchemy within the brain is responsible for the transformation of physical data, into non physical subjective experience, I cannot say.

 

Even in this, I could be wrong, and qualia might be physical in nature, but it does not seem that way to me.