Open Discussions

[cuce_amber]

I think one of the most effective ways of increasing one's language skills is an open discussion. It helps not only to refine your language skills but it also provides you with the means neccesary to back up your own opinion with arguments which at times may come quite handy. As I'm currently trying to revise my own skills for the CAE/CPE and Abitur, I'm looking for people I can discuss things with. Basically I don't want to be too picky with the topics. My interests are mainly focused on science and philosophy but anything from other fields (e.g. politics) would be fine as well.
Is anyone intersted?

[Keswick]

I think there might be a couple of people who are interested in it. Do you want to do it on the forum? If yes, why don't you start a topic in the English Only section or the Chatterbox?

[cuce_amber]

I thought that I might just use this very thread to do that, although I am not sure about the topic.
I'd suggest Philosophy of Mind for the time being but as I said I don't want to exclude anything. As I'm just doing it just for the excercise, I won't be bothered if someone posted without any background knowledge.

Inverted Qualia

Qualia inversion thought experiments are ubiquitous in contemporary philosophy of mind (largely due to the influence of Shoemaker 1982 and Block 1990). The most popular kind is one or another variant of Locke's hypothetical case of “spectrum inversion”, in which strawberries and ripe tomatoes produce visual experiences of the sort that are actually produced by grass and cucumbers, grass and cucumbers produce experiences of the sort that are actually produced by strawberries and ripe tomatoes, and so on. This entry surveys the main philosophical applications of what Dennett has called “one of philosophy's most virulent memes” (1991, 389).

(From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/)
What do you think? Do all persons perceive the impression of some particular colour as the same? If so, or not, why do you think so?

Or if the first suggestion is too specialised: What do you think, do humans have a free will?

[Delfino]

What do you think, do humans have a free will?

Yes, we do have a free will but most of us are bound by their habits,
their cultural background (the people around us, the rules of society)
and other strong influences (e.g. money).


"The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves." (John Connor, Terminator)

"I knew this was a one way ticket
but you know I had to come.
...
Have some new friends down here. Guess they've been here awhile. They've left us alone,
but it bothers them to see us hurting each other. Getting out of hand. They sent a message.
Hope you got it. ... They want us to grow up a bit, and put away childish things."
(Bud and Lindsey Brigman, The Abyss)

Humans at their best...

[cuce_amber]

Yes, we do have a free will but most of us are bound by their habits,
their cultural background (the people around us, the rules of society)
and other strong influences (e.g. money).

Isn't this kind of contradicory? If I extrapolate from the latter part of your sentence, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a free will. You say, people are bound by their habits. But what is a habit? Do the molecules in our brains not have the 'habit' to follow the laws of physics? What is the diffrence between being bound by something and being forced to do something (i.e. being not free)?
You may counter that we, whenever we are to choose from possible options, have the chance to exert our free will. I however feel, that this exactly is the moment when it becomes visible that we are most unfree as we are forced to decide. You may of course choose 'not to decide' but this is just another kind of decision if you think it as the decision 'not to decide'. To me it seems like man is not able to avoid deciding and thus is unfree.

"The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves." (John Connor, Terminator)

"God does not play dice" Einstein said, but I do not think he believed in fate either.

[Delfino]

Yes, we do have a free will but most of us are bound by their habits,
their cultural background (the people around us, the rules of society)
and other strong influences (e.g. money).

Isn't this kind of contradictory?

No, not at all.

If I extrapolate from the latter part of your sentence, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a free will.
You say, people are bound by their habits. But what is a habit?

When I said habit I meant a behaviour pattern acquired by frequent repetition or physiologic exposure that shows itself in regularity or increased facility of performance.
On the other hand there is an acquired mode of behaviour that has become nearly or completely involuntary (a drug habit => addiction).
So if your habit reached that stage it is really hard for you to overcome it and you may feel forced to do it.

Do the molecules in our brains not have the 'habit' to follow the laws of physics?

No. I think, molecules are not self-aware and in addition they are bound by the laws of physics.
So they cannot decide to ignore the rules of nature.

What is the difference between being bound by something and being forced to do something (i.e. being not free)?

Being bound by a habit is different from being forced to do something as long as the habit did not evolve to an addiction.
The difference is you could decide otherwise.

You may counter that we, whenever we are to choose from possible options, have the chance to exert our free will.
I however feel, that this exactly is the moment when it becomes visible that we are most unfree as we are forced to decide.
You may of course choose 'not to decide' but this is just another kind of decision if you think of it as the decision 'not to decide'.
To me it seems like man is not able to avoid deciding and thus is unfree.

True. Deciding 'not to decide' is a decision in itself.
I guess, you reached a point where you need to define what 'being free' means for you.

[cuce_amber]

When I said habit I meant a behaviour pattern acquired by frequent repetition or physiologic exposure that shows itself in regularity or increased facility of performance.[...]No. I think, molecules are not self-aware and in addition they are bound by the laws of physics.

Well then let's think about what a law of physics is. How can we know that a law exists? Newton supposedly saw apples falling from trees and with a lot of abstraction, he reached the conclusion that there must be some force at work. However, no one would be foolish enough to establish a law from a phenomenon that cannot be reproduced. Newton must, as we all have, seen lots of objects fall from higher positions to lower positions. It is an action frequently repeated by many kinds of objects. No one objected Newton when he claimed that this be a law, despite he never proved anything. Science is based on a gigantic dogma saying: 'Whatever may be reproduced a lots of times may be called a law'. A law only describes something that is repeated frequently.
How then, can a habit by your notion be diffrent from a law? The word habit might suggest that the probability for unusual behaviour to occur is higher than the probability of a law failing. Still, you must not forget that no one has proved yet that an apple might not fall 'up' into the heavens instead of falling down to earth.

So they cannot decide to ignore the rules of nature.

I didn't know that I had supernatural powers!

I guess, you reached a point where you need to define what 'being free' means for you.

To be honest, I'm not sure. Nevertheless I shall give it a try.
I think that everything obeying laws is not free. As humans do not, as far as I know, defy the laws of physics, I think that man's will cannot be free either. Nevertheless, my idea might be proved wrong. If someone was to find evidence that Plato, Aristotle and Decartes have spoken true with their ideas of Dualism, stating that two distinct, independet entities, i.e. the mental and the physical, may exist, this would for me be reason enough to believe in the free will.

Let me give you somethink to think about:
John enters a forest and encounters a bear. He tries to escape. Is he, in doing so, a man with a free will?
John fails. He gets bitten. He feels pain. Is he, in doing so, a man with a free will?
Cuce recues John and tells him that there is no action without reason, forming a chain of causation, which supposedly keeps man from breaking free.
John is annoyed by Cuce, who is so opinionated with his ridiculous idea of 'the unfree man'. He decides to jump of a skyscraper to show him, that there is not such a thing like a chain of causation and that man might well act without reason and thus is free. Is he, in doing so, a man with a free will?

[Delfino]

Well, then let's think about what a law of physics is. How can we know that a law exists?

Doesn't this lead us to the question? What can humans know, perceive and comprehend at all?
We are bound to our physical limits this includes quite a lot of restrains on our perception and comprehension.

Newton supposedly saw apples falling from trees and with a lot of abstraction,
he reached to the conclusion that there must be some force at work.
However, no one would be foolish enough to establish a law from a phenomenon
that cannot be reproduced.
Newton must, as we all have, seen lots of objects fall from higher positions to lower positions.
It is an action frequently repeated by many kinds of objects.
No one objected Newton when he claimed that this is a law, despite he never proved anything.

I think, the incident shifted Newton's attention to this topic and
afterwards he started to focus his eyes and thoughts on this matter.

Science is based on a gigantic dogma saying: 'Whatever may be reproduced a lots of times may be called a law'.
A law only describes something that is repeated frequently.

Actually, this is a bit wrong. Science says that under the defining circumstances of a law the relations of the participating objects are the same.
Therefore it can be repeated with the same result over and over again.

How then, can a habit by your notion be different from a law?

The habit can be broken and the law can not.
You can behave differently in a very similar situation,
but under the same circumstances (e.g. on earth, ...) an apple should always fall down.

The word habit might suggest that the probability for unusual behaviour to occur is higher than the probability of a law failing.
Still, you must not forget that no one has proved yet that an apple might not fall 'up' into the heavens instead of falling down to earth.

This might be true. Let's try it again - ups, no change yet.

So they cannot decide to ignore the rules of nature.

I didn't know that I had supernatural powers!

You don't, but you can try to disobey the rules of society or withstand the influence of money.

I guess, you reached a point where you need to define what 'being free' means for you.

To be honest, I'm not sure. Nevertheless I shall give it a try.
I think that everything obeying laws is not free.

An interesting idea, but after some thought I think there is nothing that is so free.
I believe there are limits to anything, unfortunately.

As humans do not, as far as I know, defy the laws of physics,
I think that man's will cannot be free either.
Nevertheless, my idea might be proved wrong. If someone was to find evidence
that Plato, Aristotle and Descartes have spoken true with their ideas of Dualism,
stating that two distinct, independent entities, i.e. the mental and the physical,
may exist, this would for me be reason enough to believe in the free will.

I think, that nearly everybody can forge a free thought within the limits of ones physical capabilities.

But the existence and manifestation of two entities creates a relation of these to the universe
and therefore physical limits. There is nothing that is truly independent.

Let me give you something to think about:
John enters a forest and encounters a bear.
He tries to escape. Is he, in doing so, a man with a free will?

Not sure, John is either acting upon the natural instinct of self-preservation
or running with the clear knowledge of the physical limits of his body
because he decided to do so.

John fails. He gets bitten. He feels pain. Is he, in doing so, a man with a free will?

John is still bound to his physical body. This means he is not invulnerable and his still functional body enables him to feel pain
which he might be able to ignore or overcome by executing his free will. His success depends quite a bit on his mental skills.

Cuce rescues John and tells him that there is no action without reason,
forming a chain of causation, which supposedly keeps man from breaking free.
John is annoyed by Cuce, who is so opinionated with his ridiculous idea of 'the unfree man'.
He decides to jump of a skyscraper to show him, that there is not such a thing like a chain of causation
and that man might well act without reason and thus is free. Is he, in doing so, a man with a free will?

Yes, John demonstrates his free will by surpassing the limits of his physical body which includes the natural instinct of self-preservation.
But his action is not without reason. He tries and succeeds to leave the annoying talk of Cuce behind.
He thereby continues the chain of causation.

[cuce_amber]

Doesn't this lead us to the question? What can humans know, perceive and comprehend at all?
We are bound to our physical limits this includes quite a lot of restrains on our perception and comprehension.

Seems like we are slowly shifting towards a more epistemological discussion.

Actually, this is a bit wrong. Science says that under the defining circumstances of a law the relations of the participating objects are the same.
Therefore it can be repeated with the same result over and over again.

Are you sure? Before finding the relations you talk of, there must have been the experiment you deduced your law from. Does the experiment, as a phenomenon, require the law to be existent a priori?

The habit can be broken and the law can not.
You can behave differently in a very similar situation,
but under the same circumstances (e.g. on earth, ...) an apple should always fall down.

The finding of a scientific theory is the search for the best answer. This, however, is not neccesaryly impeccable. As a matter of fact, the laws established by Newton were proved wrong and oddly enough, they still are called laws.

You don't, but you can try to disobey the rules of society or withstand the influence of money.

Then I must be operating according to laws of another system, for example the one of a criminal. Withstanding the influence of money also seems a bit problematic. I could of course evade these, becoming a hermit living in the mountains. But as long as I operate within our social system, this does not seem possible unless there is something that I might gain from doing so.

An interesting idea, but after some thought I think there is nothing that is so free.
I believe there are limits to anything, unfortunately.

Well, I think the idea of the immortal soul - which I do not believe in - is a framework within somethink like a free will by my definition might possibly exist.

I think, that nearly everybody can forge a free thought within the limits of ones physical capabilities.

And this is where it becomes neccesary to discuss how far tight these limits are.

But the existence and manifestation of two entities creates a relation of these to the universe
and therefore physical limits. There is nothing that is truly independent.

I just took those people into consideration who claim that these really are independet. I do not think so either.

Not sure, John is either acting upon the natural instinct of self-preservation
or running with the clear knowledge of the physical limits of his body
because he decided to do so.

John is still bound to his physical body. This means he is not invulnerable and his still functional body enables him to feel pain
which he might be able to ignore or overcome by executing his free will. His success depends quite a bit on his mental skills.

You may ignore pain but I don't think you can actively stop feeling.

Yes, John demonstrates his free will by surpassing the limits of his physical body which includes the natural instinct of self-preservation.
But his action is not without reason. He tries and succeeds to leave the annoying talk of Cuce behind.
He thereby continues the chain of causation.

An interesting idea. But suppose Cuce would not have been so persistent. In that case John would not have decided to do something like that. So John's act seems to be rather dependent on Cuce's will. The fact that he surpassed his limits means that he must have - at least on some level - reasoned, that he would gain more by carrying out his act than by continuing living. So there must have been at least two 'gain values', say V1 and V2 whose values were not equal. Do you really think that a comparison of this kind really may be a basis for a free will? Isn't there always some kind of comparison, conscious or unconscious, that are taking place in our heads when we are tying to decide something? And do we have control over the various factors that might play a role in these comparisons?