Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[Chesterton]

These usually take the form of illusions, like those detailed in this talk:

The transparent avatar in your brain: Thomas Metzinger at TEDxBarcelona - YouTube

If you perceive a rubber hand as part of your self, a self is being demonstrated or at least implied, but not shown to be illusion. Again he's sort of begging the question.

What am I to make of that? That your version of 'free will' is of no scientific significance?

I'm thinking you must agree with me, otherwise you'd have given me some science. You've given me two philosophers. If you refer me to some hard science on the question of free will, I'd like to look at it. Or better yet, just develop a consistent winning strategy for the game of rock-paper-scissors, then I'll stop believing in free will.

I do.

Then how was that a misrepresentation? That's what Metzinger says.

I do not recall bringing my beliefs into this exchange.

The Metzinger video above starts with him saying "I believe nobody in this room ever was or had a self." Does your level of certainty about self being an illusion rise to something more than belief?

 

[Davian]

If you perceive a rubber hand as part of your self, a self is being demonstrated or at least implied, but not shown to be illusion. Again he's sort of begging the question.

Sense of self is being demonstrated.

From the intro of his book, the Ego Tunnel:
[Wittgenstein] once greeted me with the question 'Why do people say that it was natural to think that the Sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth turned on its axis?' I replied 'I suppose because it looked like the Sun went around the Earth.' 'Well' he asked 'what would it have looked like if it had /looked/ as if the Earth turned on its axis?'

I'm thinking you must agree with me, otherwise you'd have given me some science. You've given me two philosophers.

Since when can philosophers not do science? Wiki says that Metzinger has "published the Open MIND-collection, containing more than 100 original, peer-reviewed open access-papers from philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and neuroscience."

While I find the subject fascinating, I am not up to spoon feeding you, and I am not here to champion science.

If you refer me to some hard science on the question of free will, I'd like to look at it. Or better yet, just develop a consistent winning strategy for the game of rock-paper-scissors, then I'll stop believing in free will.

I still do not know what you mean when you say "free will".

Then how was that a misrepresentation? That's what Metzinger says.

No, it was not.

The Metzinger video above starts with him saying "I believe nobody in this room ever was or had a self." Does your level of certainty about self being an illusion rise to something more than belief?

Ah, the equivocation game. When a scientist says "I believe [insert falsifiable hypothesis]", it is contextually different than the religionists' "I believe [insert unfalsifiable opinion]".

 

[Radagast]

Ah, the equivocation game. When a scientist says "I believe [insert falsifiable hypothesis]", it is contextually different than the religionists' "I believe [insert unfalsifiable opinion]".

And does the statement "I believe nobody in this room ever was or had a self" involve a falsifiable hypothesis?

 

[Davian]

And does the statement "I believe nobody in this room ever was or had a self" involve a falsifiable hypothesis?

Yes. link

 

[Radagast]

Yes. link

Possibly you are unaware what "falsifiable" means, since there is nothing at the link supporting the falsifiability claim.

And since you are a guest of a Christian forum, it might be nice if you avoided offensive words like "religionist."

 

[yesyoushould]

I was just hoping for a yea or nay. lol

 

[Radagast]

I was just hoping for a yea or nay. lol

The short answer is: "it depends on what you mean by 'free will.'"

'Free will' is a more complex concept than you realise, I think. Probably why so much ink has been spilled on the subject over the past 2,000 years.

 

[yesyoushould]

The short answer is: "it depends on what you mean by 'free will.'"

'Free will' is a more complex concept than you realise, I think. Probably why so much ink has been spilled on the subject over the past 2,000 years.

Are you free to choose God or the devil? Yes.

"God isn't the author of confusion."

 

[Davian]

Possibly you are unaware what "falsifiable" means, since there is nothing at the link supporting the falsifiability claim.

You could show that there is such thing as a "substantial" self (as a distinct ontological entity, which could in principle exist by itself), or where his thesis is in conflict with an aspect of neuroscience.

 

[Davian]

...

And since you are a guest of a Christian forum, it might be nice if you avoided offensive words like "religionist."

I am a "guest" of this site as much as you are.

I do respect the rules of this site, and I find that the use of generic terms (gods, religionists) has, to date, kept me out of of trouble. Besides, my comment was not directed at a specific religion.

Is Christianity not a religion?

 

[Albion]

I was just hoping for a yea or nay. lol

Right. But in that case, it might serve you better to create a poll. And, by the way, Radagast is also correct to say that "Free will: yea or nay" isn't going to elicit the answers you want because the term has a variety of meanings. If you mean to ask if we humans are completely free of all outside influences when deciding everything that comes along in life, that's one thing. But when we speak of free will in religious discussions, that usually refers to the ability (or inability) to make one particular choice--the choice to follow God and, thus, be saved.

 

[Radagast]

I do respect the rules of this site

The word "religionist" is a pejorative term meaning one who has "excessive/exaggerated" or "affected/pretended religious zeal." I'm sure you know that.

 

[Davian]

The word "religionist" is a pejorative term meaning one who has "excessive/exaggerated" or "affected/pretended religious zeal." I'm sure you know that.

I note that your link provides a definition of "religionism", not "religionist".

Would you also conflate scientist with scientism (in the pejorative)?

 

[Neogaia777]

Limited free-will...

God Bless!

 

[yesyoushould]

Right. But in that case, it might serve you better to create a poll. And, by the way, Radagast is also correct to say that "Free will: yea or nay" isn't going to elicit the answers you want because the term has a variety of meanings. If you mean to ask if we humans are completely free of all outside influences when deciding everything that comes along in life, that's one thing. But when we speak of free will in religious discussions, that usually refers to the ability (or inability) to make one particular choice--the choice to follow God and, thus, be saved.

"Radagast"? lol
Is that the fictional character in J.R.R. Tolkiens "Middle earth"?

 

[yesyoushould]

Oh, that is a posters username. My apologies Radagast. Yes I googled it cause I didn't understand. I'm sorry about that.

I think we all have free will and that it is evident in the worlds current state.

 

[Radagast]

Oh, that is a posters username. My apologies Radagast. Yes I googled it cause I didn't understand. I'm sorry about that.

I am named after the character in The Lord of the Rings, however.

The name used to connect with a quote from St. Francis in my signature (since Radagast the bird-tamer/Radagast the brown is a kind of St. Francis figure).

 

[Davian]

Right. But in that case, it might serve you better to create a poll. And, by the way, Radagast is also correct to say that "Free will: yea or nay" isn't going to elicit the answers you want because the term has a variety of meanings. If you mean to ask if we humans are completely free of all outside influences when deciding everything that comes along in life, that's one thing. But when we speak of free will in religious discussions, that usually refers to the ability (or inability) to make one particular choice--the choice to follow God and, thus, be saved.

How does this work? Belief is not a conscious choice.

 

[Albion]

How does this work? Belief is not a conscious choice.

Excuse me, Davian, but I'm not getting either what your comment is supposed to tell me (Belief is not a conscious choice) or how your response connects with that post of mine. Maybe you could elaborate somewhat.

What I said is that there are two different uses of the term "free will" that get argued around here and it's important to any discussion to keep them separate.

 

[Chesterton]

How does this work? Belief is not a conscious choice.

That's silly. Of course belief is a conscious choice. Do you believe men walked on the moon? If so (or if not), you may say it's because you're rational and the evidence indicates such and such, and blah, blah, but ultimately it's because you choose to believe the evidence. You can insert other words, like "I think that..." or "I feel that..." or "I find that..." but you're still talking about what you choose to believe.