Free will: Why people believe in it even when they think they're being manipulated

[durangodawood]

I agree with that, but it's you in any case, whether you grow up in a secular society, a religious society, or a cult.

You suggested there was an independent kernel of conscience, implying that it was different in some important way from that which has been modified by social pressures, but when I propose that it might be genetic predispositions modified by early experience, you say it doesn't matter. Since early experience involves social pressures, I'm at a loss to see the difference and what provides the 'spark of free will' you suggest.

I think our thoughts and actions are highly conditioned by social and biological forces. If I said the biological "doesnt matter" I only meant that re the binary question of do we have any free will. It absolutely matters re how much free will we can actually exercise. I should have made that clear.

As for what provides it, I'd say its an emergent identity enabled by our capacity for reasoning and imagination.

...What do you think your conscience is independent of?

I am not "independent of" social and biological conditioning. I have some measure of independence from which to contend with those two.

Independent is a weird word. It has an all or nothing flavor. Its hard to say you have some little degree of independence and not be misunderstood .

 

[Mark Quayle]

We like to think that dogs and monkeys arent completely going through life on rails. But its hard to get inside a monkey mind to know how it feels to be one.

At some point on a scale, some mentally handicapped humans approach the mentality of mere animals, as far as intelligence goes. Yet, would we say that makes them any less human?

 

[durangodawood]

At some point on a scale, some mentally handicapped humans approach the mentality of mere animals, as far as intelligence goes. Yet, would we say that makes them any less human?

Keeping to the free will topic re your question, I think we have an almost universal (cross cultural) agreement that regardless of how developed or undeveloped your capacity for free will is, youre still fully "human".

 

[Mark Quayle]

durangodawood said:
I dont think it matters where it came from. Once youre off and running with this little spark of free will, its you.
Mark Quayle said:
Same could be said about dogs and monkeys, no?
durangodawood said:
We like to think that dogs and monkeys arent completely going through life on rails. But its hard to get inside a monkey mind to know how it feels to be one.
Mark Quayle said:
At some point on a scale, some mentally handicapped humans approach the mentality of mere animals, as far as intelligence goes. Yet, would we say that makes them any less human?

Keeping to the free will topic re your question, I think we have an almost universal (cross cultural) agreement that regardless of how developed or undeveloped your capacity for free will is, youre still fully "human".

Yet you would say that if human, then free will, no?

 

[durangodawood]

durangodawood said:
I dont think it matters where it came from. Once youre off and running with this little spark of free will, its you.
Mark Quayle said:
Same could be said about dogs and monkeys, no?
durangodawood said:
We like to think that dogs and monkeys arent completely going through life on rails. But its hard to get inside a monkey mind to know how it feels to be one.
Mark Quayle said:
At some point on a scale, some mentally handicapped humans approach the mentality of mere animals, as far as intelligence goes. Yet, would we say that makes them any less human?

Yet you would say that if human, then free will,

Would I say that? Did I?

I do think that some free will is a normal capacity of the human mind. But perhaps certain people are so deficient that they lack it. Yet we still have ethical reasons for calling them "human".

What does all this have to do with anything?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would I say that? Did I?

I do think that some free will is a normal capacity of the human mind. But perhaps certain people are so deficient that they lack it. Yet we still have ethical reasons for calling them "human".

What does all this have to do with anything?

I'm looking for definition, or boundaries, to what you were trying to say by, "Once youre off and running with this little spark of free will, its you." Going by our conversation so far, it seems you think that there are some humans lacking that little spark of free will, and that it is bigger in some than in others. Nor have you shown that it is not in animals, but you have hinted at the idea that there are perhaps threshold amounts of it. I can only speculate without continuing the conversation that you may think some humans are no more responsible for their thoughts and deeds than animals are, and innocent, not to be sent to the LOF for their sins.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm looking for definition, or boundaries, to what you were trying to say by, "Once youre off and running with this little spark of free will, its you." Going by our conversation so far, it seems you think that there are some humans lacking that little spark of free will, and that it is bigger in some than in others. Nor have you shown that it is not in animals, but you have hinted at the idea that there are perhaps threshold amounts of it. I can only speculate without continuing the conversation that you may think some humans are no more responsible for their thoughts and deeds than animals are, and innocent, not to be sent to the LOF for their sins.

I dont know what its like to be a human in a coma, or be a human with exceptional brain defects. I really cant speak about these or other edge cases. Nor do they have any bearing at all on my sense of the spark of free will among 99%+ of humans.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Particularly in modern times, I think, we have raised the importance of "the individual" perhaps higher than ever in history.

Yes, that's true of western societies, but there are still many societies, particularly in the east & far-east, where the group is considered more important than the individual.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Media is experienced both consciously and unconsciously. Consciously we are absorbing what is being displayed while our unconscious mind is filling it with everything else that we have already experienced. When we act we draw on that experiences from both parts of our mind. How much of our actions are manipulated and how much to free will?

I guess that depends on how you define 'manipulation' and what you mean by 'free will'. Once you define what counts as manipulation, you could define free will as whatever is not manipulated

Does early socialization count as manipulation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Keeping to the free will topic re your question, I think we have an almost universal (cross cultural) agreement that regardless of how developed or undeveloped your capacity for free will is, youre still fully "human".

There are usually limits in terms of 'human rights' - for those judged to be literally 'brain dead', and for a certain period after conception...

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, that's true of western societies, but there are still many societies, particularly in the east & far-east, where the group is considered more important than the individual.

Speaking of the importance of the individual, and individual rights, I watched a video of John MacArthur teaching on the Calvinistic doctrine of Regeneration, where God changes a person's nature without asking the person's permission. He said all that, then looked kind of funny, and mock-quoted the thinking of those who object to the notion that God would do such a thing, without asking the person's permission, "He can't do that! We are Americans!"

 

[Frank Robert]

I guess that depends on how you define 'manipulation' and what you mean by 'free will'. Once you define what counts as manipulation, you could define free will as whatever is not manipulated

Does early socialization count as manipulation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Socialization for the most part is not meant to be manipulative but a part of what we learned from being socialized remains unconscious and as such would have an effect on the choices we make in the present.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Socialization for the most part is not meant to be manipulative but a part of what we learned from being socialized remains unconscious and as such would have an effect on the choices we make in the present.

Yes, I'd call it a mixture of tacit and explicit indoctrination into a culture's values & mores. Typically benign, but a form of manipulation nonetheless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess that depends on how you define 'manipulation' and what you mean by 'free will'. Once you define what counts as manipulation, you could define free will as whatever is not manipulated

Does early socialization count as manipulation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In at least religious debate, Free Will is not the same thing as Individual Rights. It has to do more with ability than with justice. But still, yes, there is considerable overlap and range of usage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In at least religious debate, Free Will is not the same thing as Individual Rights. It has to do more with ability than with justice. But still, yes, there is considerable overlap and range of usage.

OK; they're categorically different, so clearly not the same thing - but I'm not sure what 'Individual Rights' has to do with it anyhow...

E.T.A. Oh, I see, you're actually referring to a different post. The relation is that human rights may be considered irrelevant if the individual is thought not to have crucial capacities conferring humanity or personhood, such as certain mental capacities. In the case of the brain damaged, this might be the capacity to make choices or value judgements.