Free Will

Jason · Only in cartoons

RE: Free Will

MorisUkunRasik · World's Strongest Millionaire

I learn nothing from my previous actions!

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

I never got a response to what I think is my best point.

Deathpiggie wrote

The ability to reason, to choose between 2 or more options, to form abstractions.

I'd say the fact that you can say " I am not sure " proves free will.
An animal's mind ( we're speaking non-rational animals here ) do not have the ability to doubt, however humans do.
Animals exist in a world of sensation and percepts, as do developing human beings ( infants ). It is at the stage of forming concepts that one realizes his free will, his ability to discriminate and to doubt certain claims. If man were deterministic, we would flow directly from perceptions to concepts, much like we did from sensations to perceptions as developing children.
The ability to be sure of something, or to doubt something is an act of introspection. A determinist mind would work automatically, and would be unquestionable and infallible.

The way we form concepts and ideas is obviously not one of automatic, determined thought, but of our CHOICE to use reason, to think about something past an automatic sense.

Jason · Only in cartoons

A determinist mind would be automatic, but not instantaneous, and certainly not unquestionable or infallible.

What do you mean that sensation flows directly to perception in children? As far as I can tell, sensation and perception are the same thing, and they are formed only through complex and barely understood processes in the brain and connecting nervous tissues.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Perceptions are sensations that are grouped in the mind automatically. A child or animal brain automatically integrates sensations into perceptions. Perception of something is automatic. However, the art of concept formation is much different. It requires a person to focus his mind, to integrate and differentiate of his own volition.

Jason · Only in cartoons

On the contrary, I think (and I think the latest research agrees with me) that concept-formation is an integral component of perception. In order to see two different objects, our visual system must form some concept of discrete entities. Newborns can't really see because their brains haven't made the proper connections, haven't formed the proper concepts to make sense of incoming sensory information.

Of course, we might have different ideas of what "concept" means. I think there can be unconscious concepts, which could be realized consciously if one were to think about it. A concept in this view is any abstraction of a class of objects that is formed by combining their common characteristics.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Concepts represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents..

Once again, I would suggest highly Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology. I think the idea of measurement omission is one of Rand's most valuable philosophic contributions.

Ozpunker · Senior Member

I voted yes. I'm no expert on the subject but I was talking the other day about a topic similar to this.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Jason wrote:

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

Also, do you not consider philosophy a science?

Philosophy and the sciences are fundamentally distinct. Philosophy seeks to answer questions that cannot be answered through observation and experimentation. Philosophy does not employ the scientific method and is therefore not a science.
I do think philosophy should be heavily grounded in science and should use and trust the knowledge obtained through science.

No one can know anything without observation. You observe that somethnig exists, and that you exist to perceive it.

Also, I'd like to add that the natural sciences can't exist without a grounding in metaphysics and epistemology.

-- Edited by DEATHPIGGIE at 21:12, 2008-08-22

Jason · Only in cartoons

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

No one can know anything without observation. You observe that somethnig exists, and that you exist to perceive it.

Also, I'd like to add that the natural sciences can't exist without a grounding in metaphysics and epistemology.

The part in bold, I think, is moot. Just because we can't know anything without observation doesn't mean all knowledge can be obtained through science.

The part in italics I completely agree with; metaphysics and epistemology are intrinsically more fundamental knowledge and are logically prior to any understanding gained through the natural sciences.

Andy001 · Spaghetti

Eh, now I have more stuff I want to say about this, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase it.

Andy001 · Spaghetti

BEST. SERIOUS TOPIC. EVER.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

That's what your mind WANTS you to think.