Does fear take away our free will? Or does it inhibit it?
If not, what do we have to fear?
no such thing as free will
Does fear take away our free will? Or does it inhibit it?
If not, what do we have to fear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Anyone looked into this? It's quite interesting. Although Lewis Carroll did provide a very good argument against it ( that it is by definition unprovable)
Basically it's the idea that every thought is a product of our neurological chemistry, our environment and conditioning. A thought is just a product of the brain- we had no choice in making them.
Maybe if there's no free will in the first place, then fear makes it appear to us that we have less 'free will' by stunting our decision making processes (in prefrontal cortex?) and our conscious thought. But really it is just an illusion, as our 'rational', un-fearful thoughts were never an aspect of free will either. Who knows!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Anyone looked into this? It's quite interesting. Although Lewis Carroll did provide a very good argument against it ( that it is by definition unprovable)
Basically it's the idea that every thought is a product of our neurological chemistry, our environment and conditioning. A thought is just a product of the brain- we had no choice in making them.
Maybe if there's no free will in the first place, then fear makes it appear to us that we have less 'free will' by stunting our decision making processes (in prefrontal cortex?) and our conscious thought. But really it is just an illusion, as our 'rational', un-fearful thoughts were never an aspect of free will either. Who knows!
It is possible to demonstrate "partial determinism" through social experiment and sociology. I don't know that hard determinism could be proven definitively, and free-will cannot be proven. In either case free-will seems to be a useful illusion at worst - when assumed in moderation. The idea itself might contribute to outcomes even if we are just the result of the impressions we have encountered. Unbridled free-will is a dangerous concept and can nullify compassion because by instilling people with imagined power they do not posses, it is possible to actually make them more powerless. Responsibility without the actual power act is destructive and even cruel.Kant addressed this question from all angles without the evidence and concluded that while we're likely to be automatons it was a categorical imperative to believe in free will and act as though self-determinism existed. Perhaps in order to make it a reality one day. I know a lot of enlightenment philosophy worked out like that.
Anyway, I do believe in soft determinism, or partial determinist, all those things are significant and influence things but they are not completely deterministic. To use a social constructionist analogy if you build a house our of concrete it will still be concrete, and a house presumably, but you can decide what shape to make it, how many rooms etc.
I would also say that some people are more subjects of their brain chemistry, environment, conditioning than others, either those things have had such an impact as to void or seriously impinge upon their individual sovereignty, like sociopaths or psychopaths or someone with a brain injury, or they simply havent ever developed many of their critical or analytical faculties at all.
To be honest the hard determinism, humans are automatons or pin balls, argument is not that different from the extremes of constructionism which suppose that no self or individual identity exists outside or besides what are constructed as stories by others or between others about an individual. If you take anything too far it seems to become absurd.
It is possible to demonstrate "partial determinism" through social experiment and sociology. I don't know that hard determinism could be proven definitively, and free-will cannot be proven. In either case free-will seems to be a useful illusion at worst - when assumed in moderation. The idea itself might contribute to outcomes even if we are just the result of the impressions we have encountered. Unbridled free-will is a dangerous concept and can nullify compassion because by instilling people with imagined power they do not posses, it is possible to actually make them more powerless. Responsibility without the actual power act is destructive and even cruel.
From a personal point of view I don't know if free-will exists, but for some reason it does not seem to effect my desire to make constructive choices. I would act and "choose" the same whether it could be proven there is free-will or proven there is none (or most clearly it is constrained). Typically, though, I can trace back a source for my constructive or destructive impulses and observe how they interact to produce outcomes. It can certainly "feel" like there is free choice, but the experience of that feeling is stronger the less data one can keep track of for the cause and effect of personal behavior.
Free will exists.
I know too many people who have turned their lives around to think that determinism is anything but a convenient escape clause by people unwilling to admit to their own freedom, for whatever reason. Usually the same people who believe in determinism like to say things like it's all been done and there are no new ideas. Both of which are complete nonsense.
When I first came across determinism, I didn't like it. I was deeply unsettled by it. I would prefer to have my own freedom, but i'm not going to choose to believe in something because it seems like the nicest option. If it was universally accepted, it would mean that criminals are not responsible for their actions and the concept of punishment would have to be rethought. This would be difficult, obviously.
The conception of new ideas is totally compatible with determinism. The brain is supposed to have more neural connections than atoms in the universe (apparently - whatever the number is it's bound to be a lot!). If this is the case, then the effects that our senses, psychology and environment have on us are so varied and vast that originality and individuality is not really in question.
It’s not possible for the brain to have more connections than atoms in the universe, or even more than in the human body.
Also - if you really think about it- how is it possible to have a conscious thought completely separate and removed from your own existence? Even your vocabulary and language alters the way you perceive the world and your thought processes.
Of course it’s not possible to have a thought that is not connected to existence. If the definition of free will requires that this separation exist, then the concept of determinism as its antithesis makes no sense because it mandates surreality.
I'm not saying that free will does not exist - it is just perhaps less likely as it is definitely more intangible than determinism. Anything based on empiricism and the scientific theory such as determinism takes some leap of faith though I suppose.[Relativity is highly intangible and complex, yet it has been proven to be accurate. Intangibility does not obviate truth./QUOTE]
When I first came across determinism, I didn't like it. I was deeply unsettled by it. I would prefer to have my own freedom, but i'm not going to choose to believe in something because it seems like the nicest option. If it was universally accepted, it would mean that criminals are not responsible for their actions and the concept of punishment would have to be rethought. This would be difficult, obviously.
The conception of new ideas is totally compatible with determinism. The brain is supposed to have more neural connections than atoms in the universe (apparently - whatever the number is it's bound to be a lot!). If this is the case, then the effects that our senses, psychology and environment have on us are so varied and vast that originality and individuality is not really in question.
It’s not possible for the brain to have more connections than atoms in the universe, or even more than in the human body.
Also - if you really think about it- how is it possible to have a conscious thought completely separate and removed from your own existence? Even your vocabulary and language alters the way you perceive the world and your thought processes.
Of course it’s not possible to have a thought that is not connected to existence. If the definition of free will requires that this separation exist, then the concept of determinism as its antithesis makes no sense because it mandates surreality.
I'm not saying that free will does not exist - it is just perhaps less likely as it is definitely more intangible than determinism. Anything based on empiricism and the scientific theory such as determinism takes some leap of faith though I suppose.[Relativity is highly intangible and complex, yet it has been proven to be accurate. Intangibility does not obviate truth./QUOTE]
-I did say 'apparently'. I was only suggesting that there would be many ways in which personality and originality could manifest itself within a determinist universe, as everyone is going to be influenced differently.
-Well, yes it does - if free will is the ability to make a choice without any other influence. There is no way that you can make a 'decision' that is without some form of outside or biological influence. Any decision you make is entirely outside of your control, as it is always going to be influenced by things outside of your control.
Also - just throwing this out there, could classical conditioning exist alongside free-will? The fact that it exists at all suggests we are highly influenced by things we are not immediately aware of - stimulus response is a subconscious process for example.
What is your definition of free-will, out of interest?
-You're totally right about the relativity and intangibility thing. Though I was kind of thinking of Occam's Razor - where the explanation that is most simple is more likely (but not necessarily) true. I don't really know enough about it though.