Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will

Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will Empty Re: Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will

Post  tgII on Thu 26 Jul 2012, 04:06

Probably the most important concept you can comprehend and apply in your life while on earth...

    Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The two main positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

    Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilist. Positions that deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilist, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias). In fact, compatibilists will often assert that determinism is not just compatible with free will, but actually necessary for it.

    The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behavior.

Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17

Back to top Go down

Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will Empty Re: Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will

Post  KapitanScarlet on Thu 26 Jul 2012, 23:01

Free Will - Its an interesting concept , in theory available to everyone , with its key component being that free will is exercised by the individual awareness referred to as the i-consciousness

In contradiction to this free will exercised by the individual i-consciousness, at any point in time, a person can commit a violent crime against another person and plead insanity giving them a get out clause from the responsibility of their free willed individual action which then raises the question , if its been accepted that a crime was committed by an insane human , which means that it was not carried out by their individual i-consciousness directed free will , then the question is begged = Who or what exactly directed and carried out the crime ?

We find ourselves with a law that recognises and makes concessions to acts of crime that are carried out by individuals who are accepted to have the absence of free will or the individual i-consciousness during the act of crime, but we are then provided with no form of understanding of what exactly it is that commands the acts of an individual that is recognised to be in absence of its free willed consciousness

Something contained within that so called insane individual took specific willed actions that committed an act of crime , but society cannot say exactly what gave those willed commands (if it not be the individual themselves)

Which brings up the question , of what exactly is "Insane" (out of ones mind ) so who is exactly in that mind and directing actions while the host is supposed to be out of it ?

It seems for sure that in many individual humans there is the potential for individual conscious free will action , there is also huge potential for subconscious non-individual willed actions which if in violent form is labelled as insane

Society does not dare try and distinguish what exactly is directing an insane person in a court of law , they are happy only to recognise that a lack of individual is present but not prepared to say what it is that currently is directing the insane person

But i think myself that maybe only about 5% of a an average persons actions are carried out by free willed action , the rest is subconscious duplicity and something also beyond that , which influences the thoughts and actions of humans

Where i believe a human can make brilliant progress in consciousness is to become aware and fully responsible for their willed (free or not) actions , this is the first stage in discovering exactly what ones own individual free will is and how it has to eventually co-ordinate with what appears to be something else's will in this physical earth , which occasionally does seem to work in harmony with an individuals will, as long as that individual is apparently on its authentic route of discovery and learning , if it strays off, it encounters obstacles with an ever greater resistance , if it still insists on straying , it gets a couple of horns on top (:


Posts : 3293
Join date : 2009-11-16


Back to top Go down

Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will Empty Re: Neuroscience Vs. Philosophy: Taking Aim at Free Will

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum