A Sense of Free Will: the consciousness quagmire (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 07, 2015, 19:40 (3147 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh, my post to you contained the answers to nearly every question you have asked. You seem to respond to individual sentences instead of considering their context. I explained precisely why according to my definition we do NOT have free will (“we are all subject to cause and effect, and so our choices are dependent on factors beyond our own control” etc.), and yet you ask repeatedly whether our choices are independent of various causes! I went on to offer you a “proposition” that incorporates the cause and effect argument but according to my definition still enables us to believe that we DO have free will (see below). My definition allows for both sides, whereas yours automatically excludes one, which is rather like an atheist proving his point by defining God as a figment of the human imagination.
 
A few details: if you wish to discuss free will, an agreed definition is essential. Whether rivers, bacteria or computers are conscious or not, is irrelevant to whether free will exists. If we humans have it, it exists, regardless of whether other forms of existence have it or not. The cause and effect argument against it applies to all forms of existence anyway. As regards consciousness, you “...find I am not aware of what I am writing - except in a historical sense. I have that awareness.” I don't know what you mean by “historical sense”. If you are not aware of what you are writing, or of the personal and environmental restrictions involved when you make a choice, I suggest you seek help as soon as possible! Might you perhaps be confusing this awareness with knowledge of how your thoughts formulate themselves, i.e. the source and nature of consciousness as opposed to its existence? -Thank you for digging out my original definition (“an entity's conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints”) which I am still happy with. As regards “an entity”, see above re other forms of consciousness (I would not like to exclude our fellow animals); for subliminal influences and what controls the decision-making process, see above re cause and effect; “given constraints” are those “imposed by the environment and our own limitations”. You wrote: “If we are reduced to arguments from instinct then we are in deep trouble, scientifically and philosophically.” What I presented was not an argument from instinct but a rational argument to explain the instinct, but perhaps I did not make it clear enough, so I will try again below. (However, on a note of general worldly wisdom, I can think of many spheres of life in which I'd trust instinct more than science and philosophy!)
 
As regards Bruce Hood, The Self Illusion, I wish I had time to read the thousand and one books I am advised to read. However, here again is the “proposition”. On the cause and effect level, I do not have free will. That is agreed. On a different level (what I called the instinctive as opposed to the intellectual), one can argue that although my self is composed of factors beyond my control (“chemical, hereditary, environmental, educational etc.”), it is still the person I call “me”. My consciousness, experiences, opinions, decisions etc. are mine and whatever has influenced them does not mean they are not mine. Therefore, I have the ability to make my own conscious choices, or I have the conscious ability to control my decision-making process. Perhaps you can just give me a brief résumé of why this is unacceptable to you.