Free Will (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by David Turell , Monday, September 06, 2010, 18:20 (5191 days ago) @ dhw


> I hesitate to enter your very own field of medicine, but is it not true that there are certain brain and glandular disorders that can drastically affect or change people's personalities (and hence their actions and choices)? Although I believe the cause of schizophrenia is still unknown, would you say schizophrenics are able to choose all their thoughts? If diseases, disorders, narcotics and medications can affect the brain and thus affect behaviour, how can we totally dismiss the possibility that our genetic inheritance is directly responsible for at least certain aspects of our conduct? Romansh has quoted Pinker, who claims that 40%-50% of our behavioural traits might be ascribed to genetics (which we cannot change). I don't know how he can be so precise, but I don't know how you can be so precise either.-Pinker is quoting what is taught in med school: personality is 40% genetics, 40% familial influence in growing up and 20% personal conclusions from experience when independent of family. As far as chemicals and illnesses messing with brain function, I thought we were discussing normal people, defined as not with a disease. Obviously you make a good point. I'm sure I am more normal than you are. ) We certainly may have unrecognized quirks, and I view free will as within those limts for that person.
> 
> Romansh disagrees with my interpretation, and thinks "this definition leads us (well it did me) to doubt the very existence of the self."
> 
> Once again, I think you're trying to argue on two different levels at once. The first level is purely semantic. You introduced the term "free will" into our discussion on intelligence, and have now said what you mean by it. Your definition presupposes the existence of the environment and of the universe, while the ability to act or make choices clearly presupposes the existence of individual human beings. If the environment and the universe might make our decisions dependent, how can you argue that the given, uncontrollable elements of human beings are not just as capable of doing so? My own definition (1 September at 14.42) is "the conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond one's own control".-I think your definition is very fitting, as I suggested above.-> 
> The second stage of the argument is whether you believe free will ... according to your definition ... is possible or not. This is where I'm going to have to try and decipher your cryptic statement. I hope you'll correct me if I fail to read your mind, but I suspect this is another example of your preoccupation with boundaries (that is not meant negatively). What I think you're saying is that human beings can't be separated from their environment and the universe, and therefore we can't separate the self. It's the mystic "All is One". Consequently there can be no such thing as free will. The Strawson quote ... again please correct me if I'm wrong ... suggests that eventually all our thoughts must go back to something we can't control, which is a bit like saying we don't know what governs our subconscious (though I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on boundaries between conscious and subconscious).-I'll accept the mystic 'all is one'. I think my 'self' is 'me'. I am separate from the universe, and my environment. I obvserve both, but I have been markedly influenced by both, especially people in my environment. I think my 'self' has free will within the boundries described.