Consciousness: a philosopher believes in free will (General)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 09, 2020, 16:53 (1747 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: if neurophysiology is merely the image of conscious willing, not its cause or source—then we do have free will (dhw’s bold) ; for in the latter case, our choices are determined by volitional states we intuitively regard as expressions of ourselves. (David's bold)

dhw: (Schopenhauer died in 1869, so I'm not sure how much of this post is taken directly from him.)

DAVID: This quote from the website explains for you: "As elucidated in my concise new book, Decoding Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics, for Schopenhauer the inner essence of everything is conscious volition—that is, will."

dhw: Thank you. I’m in no position to judge anything beyond what is said in the article itself, but the first quote above seems to me to be woefully inadequate, as explained in detail yesterday.

dhw: […] Whether consciousness is a blank slate or not, produced by God or produced by the brain, the important question is where do the eventual characteristics come from that influence the decisions made by our consciousness?

DAVID: I think the consciousness mechanism we have gives us a blank slate with which to work.

dhw: I do not believe for one second that all babies are born with exactly the same temperament, degree of intelligence, capacity to learn or to reason. These are all factors that influence the decisions we have to take when we exercise our will.

I agree that 40% of our personality tendencies are inherited.

dhw: In my post, I offered two definitions of free will. I shan’t repeat the reasoning behind the definitions:

dhw: If you define free will as the autonomous ability of an individual within given constraints to make decisions independently from outside influences, my answer would be yes, we have it. If the definition is ….to make decisions independently from causes and effects over which the individual has no control, my answer would be, no, we don’t have it. The dilemma is relived again and again in courts of law.

DAVID: Here I disagree. In our ability to logically reason we can review the influences we know we have gained/were given from our pasts. We can certainly change our basic precepts. I went from agnostic to belief. As a child my parents taught me to be a liberal Democrat. I am now a libertarian who votes Republican, and generally despises them for their spinelessness because they are so two-faced. We are stuck with two ridiculous parties set in legalistic stone.

dhw: I agree with your political comments, which apply equally to the shambles we have over here! You accepted the first definition (the argument being that all the influences are part of the unique “me”, and so it is still the unique “me” that makes the decisions), because you believe in free will! But your changes of belief will certainly have taken place as a result of new experiences and knowledge. Once we start delving into causes and effects - why and how you had those experiences and gained that knowledge, and why you reacted to them in the way that you did (inborn characteristics, temperament, intelligence) - we shall embark on a never-ending quest, and not even you know what you will find at the end of it. I remain caught between the two definitions – agnostic, as usual!

But at least you admit those of us who do introspective thinking can learn and change from the learning.