Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I offer you a simple experiment.
Close your eyes and think about any actor from the movie, whether domestic or foreign. Just choose an actor.
Have you thought about it? Good.
Now choose another one, but pay close attention to the selection process itself.
Now tell me – why did you choose these two out of all the possible options?
You can rationalize your choice once made it (for example, saying to myself “I chose al Pacino because recently I watched Scent of a woman with him), but the truth is that in the moment of choice, the idea with the name of the actor appears out of nowhere and you can't tell you why hundreds of names at a time when you had to choose in your mind were ones that came from and why you made the choices you did.
Otherwise, you would need to think before you think, but any choice is clearly wrong.
And so it is with the rest of our lives. We think that we choose what we choose, but in reality, thoughts appear in our head on their own and we do what we do in the belief that we make decisions, but at the level of our experiences, we are more an observer, not the source of our choice.
For a more complete and probably competent proof of the lack of free will (which turns out to be good news), I recommend the Free will section in the Waking Up app or Sam Harris ' book Free will.
Ummm… As far as I remember, such an experiment was already conducted in 1971-the Stanford Prison Psychological Experiment, in which volunteers were divided into two control groups: “warders” and “prisoners”. At the same time, the” guards “very quickly got into the taste and began to mock and insult the” prisoners”, and the latter were always depressed and suffered mental injuries of varying severity.
In fact, the experiment negated the free will of representatives of both groups, since both of them performed exactly what was expected of them, without trying to overcome the established stereotypes of behavior.
A similar experiment was conducted by Milgram, which involved two people located in different rooms. One had to memorize pairs of words associated with certain associations, and then, in response to one word from the pair, pronounce the second. In case of an error, the second subject closed the electrical circuit in his room, and thought that he was electrocuting the first, each time with an ever-increasing voltage, which is just a simulation.
Despite the increasing blows and the fact that the person who pressed experienced obvious feelings from causing pain to the first one, 65% of people continued to beat the memorizer with the current, since such conditions of the experiment were set, which also does not characterize freedom of will very well, but perfectly illustrates the suppression of participants by the authority of the experiment leader.
It strongly depends on what is meant by free will. Many people (and I do not understand why) understand it as complete independence of decision-making from circumstances. Such freedom seems to me obviously incompatible with reality.
By free will, I mean our ability to consciously make decisions, while taking into account their consequences and recursively including the result of a decision in the list of its causes. “I made the decision to do it so that I could be the one who did it.” Libet's experiment indirectly confirms the ability of our consciousness to make decisions, since after fixing the preparatory brain activity outside of consciousness, a person has the opportunity to cancel the action consciously.
The existence of free will is easy to realize even outside of an experiment. It is enough to think about what would give you pleasure, but at the same time you would not have any opportunity to achieve it.
For example, you are faced with a dilemma : visit your parents on your only day off or go fishing with a good company.
Depending on the choice, you will experience quite the opposite feelings. If the choice fell on your parents, and you would like to spend this day with friends, then fulfilling your filial duty, you will be internally dissatisfied with your choice, although outwardly this may not be expressed in any way.
If you choose to go fishing with friends, your sense of joy from the trip will also not be complete, because a sense of duty to your parents will cause remorse.
In any case, if there is a conflict between the desire to get pleasure and the performance of something necessary, then it will take a lot of effort to overcome it. As a rule, this conflict is resolved through reflection, that is, when we limit our will to reason.
Therefore, the presence of free will does not necessarily require experimental confirmation. We can want in complete freedom, but we cannot do in freedom. When our desire to do coincides with the opportunity to do, we feel satisfaction, and possibly pleasure. But dreams, that is, the will in intention, sometimes make us happy.�
There is no such experiment and there can be no such thing. An experiment is an observation under controlled conditions with a reproducible result. If a person behaves like this (reproducibly) in an experiment, then his behavior is predictable, which means that there is no free will. If some observation shows unpredictability of behavior, then this is not an experiment because it is not reproducible.
It follows that any scientific experiment will show a lack of free will.
Free will exists but strictly within certain limits,you can exercise your free will but still be forced to adhere to certain rules and laws.
A simple example: you have a car with a license and you are free to go wherever you want,but you will have to comply with traffic rules,or as now in the current situation with the coronavirus, no one forbids you to go shopping and other public places, but you must wear a mask.
That is, free will seems to exist, but it does not exist, or rather it is very limited,if we take absolute free will, then it does not exist, there will always be limits,rules and restrictions for everyone,and by and large if free will existed in its full scope and manifestation, then there would be chaos and I apologize lawlessness, hardly people would then be people.
Free will exists. But this is a speculative conclusion. But the question is different. How to implement it? After all, this is influenced by various factors.
The factory opened. Gathered people. They asked who wants to be a factory director of their own free will? 100 people raised their hands in the air. There will be only one director here, if you can help it.
Athletes also have free will, but only one person takes the first place!
I answer you here not under compulsion, but of my own free will. I might not have answered it, just as I don't answer many of the questions here. And why do I answer? But because there are no factors that interfere with my free will.
As you can see, even without an experiment, everything is clear. I hope.
None at all. Until there is a clear and precise understanding of what is being discussed, there is no correct formulation of the question – the discussion turns into an empty meaningless chatterbox, nothing reasonable and unable to give.
You all wrote answers based on your own free will, and mostly such nonsense that you didn't even realize that such free will was revealed because of an elementary question.
So much for the experiment. Free will does not manifest itself without a reason.
The ability to judge is carried out through the connection between reason and reason, but already within the framework of heteronomous ethics, as a manifestation of human free will is carried out in space-time. (I. KANT) .”Freedom is the removal of contradictions” – Hegel. This is primarily the freedom of the properties of the mind, thinking, consciousness, and after making a decision to perform an activity, act, etc. (a specific action: selection). Spinoza believes that freedom is opposed not to necessity, but to compulsion. A free person is one who defines himself in his own action. But, according to Kant, since our mind is free, because it is free and in a positive sense-has its own legislation, i.e. the moral law that is present in human nature (conscience) and this attribute belongs, of course, not to the material soul, which is involved in eternity. Any activity of a person is connected with his volitional decision and, accordingly, with goal-setting in the act he has committed. The moral law establishes an objective reason, independent of the external world, and is present in man as an ethical imperative. A person's desire for good, for perfection, is free and conscious, and this independence determines his heteronomous ethics: to do good or not to do it. Free will is a will that obeys only moral laws.That is, the world of “phenomena” is characterized by necessity, and the world of “things-in-themselves” is characterized by freedom (a conclusion made in the “third antinomy of pure reason” ). Man is a being belonging to both the external, material, and moral world. With reference to this case, Kant formulates his famous aphorism: “You must-then you can”. A bad or good act is evaluated not only by you, but also by the society (society) in which you live. Because freedom is connected with the system of human values, which presupposes the right to choose between good and evil (but already as the commission of a certain action). This system of values, morals, and aesthetic perception is present in the metaphysical nature of man (in the rational soul) and determines his personal existence. The categorical imperative, according to Kant, does not contradict Christian moral legislation, since the commandments “love God most of all” and “love your neighbor as yourself” coincide with the categorical imperative, because “love your neighbor” is an expression of the second version of the categorical imperative, and love for God cannot be an object of experience in society, environment, therefore it cannot relate to heteronomous ethics, but can only relate to the world of things-in-themselves, i.e., to the field of autonomous ethics. The second postulate of practical reason is a postulate that follows from the necessity and possibility of solving the antinomy of practical reason and which presupposes the existence of a spiritual world. This is the postulate of the immortality of the soul. The highest good is possible only if in the highest good there is a complete correspondence of a person's beliefs with the moral law – what we, following Kant, call holiness. If there is a smart person, and there are even smarter people, then there is Absolute Intelligence. Therefore, the love of God is not a principle of heteronomy, but a principle of autonomy, and it does not violate the laws of pure reason. Who could reward a person with such valuable psychological properties? Of course, the Creator and Legislator. This moral freedom distinguishes a person from all living, biological beings of our space. Therefore, only a person is responsible for state law, moral, moral, aesthetic, etc. But it is not possible to prove experimentally the existence of the property of free will, since the human soul is not material, and nature is metaphysical. This hypothesis should probably be recognized as a synopsis, as a theoretical, unsubstantiated reasoning. Due to the fact that psychology as a science has learned only to observe human behavior, and experiments are possible only with material objects. Just as a person's thought has a linguistic content (Logos, reason), i.e. mental activity has a connection with the mind, but it is present autonomously and is the Reason for the motivation of the mind (brain), but it is not connected with the nervous activity of a person. But a person has a verbal ability to express speech and an intellectual one. Mental activity has no connection with the sense organs (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste), because the intellectual word (mental) has nothing to do with the sense organs. We can't say, ” a word has a smell, tastes good, is dry, or can hear a thought. Verbal and mental activity have one source, Logos, and this is the human mental activity, which carries out its activity together with the mind, as a concept of semantic structure, since thought does not belong to the brain cell and does not consist of particles.�
Reason is understood as the contemplation of eternity (inspiration, intuition) and also a property of the free will of a rational soul.�
You don't need to do any experiments… Everything is elementary Watson… Just do what you want and see for yourself… Moreover, no one forbids you anything … Your will is completely free … You just need to remember that you are not the only one living on Earth and your will often ends where the will of another person begins…
You just need to do something stupid. Arbitrary or involuntary. Just sit down at the piano and bang on the keys from the fool.
“What are you playing, Count? – Yes, it is. Bullshit!”
You can do this for a long time. Until the realization comes: “It looks like I'm free to do that. It's not music. Rumble and a set of sounds. But I think I look like a fool. I've been playing for an hour now. It's a good thing no one sees me.”
To date, none. In the future, as an option, recording consciousness on a computer, or working with AI. And also it is necessary to understand what “freedom” is. If we limit ourselves to materialism without fairy tales about God, the soul, etc., then the human body in each specific situation can give only one response to an external stimulus.
free will – the ability to express desires (make choices) independently (from other people and circumstances).. will = desire, freedom = independence.
the common “marshmallow test” is quite suitable for making a conclusion about the free will of the subjects (another thing is that the marshmallow test usually makes a conclusion about the potential of children).
the problem with the Libet experiment is that it does not determine the variability of the occurrence of a desire (first-order will), but only states the possibility of canceling actions at will .. that is, it states that a person has only freedom (as independence from the first desire that has arisen) to choose a subsequent action (as a second-order will).
at the same time, the marshmallow test shows both the variability of the first wish (the first marshmallow) and the variability of the second wish (the second marshmallow), and the variability of the choice between these wishes, and the freedom of choice .. because of this multi-order of the manifestation of desires (will), there is some difficulty in interpreting the results, but as the actual presence of free will-it will go.
Free will – as opposed to commentators who suggest that there may be “different understandings of the term” – is an unambiguous religious concept.
It means that despite the presence of an omnipotent omniscient Creator, strictly according to the plan and plan of which everything happens, and even a hair cannot fall against the will of God – all the same, a Person allegedly has free will and can even commit all sorts of “sins”against the will of almighty God.
Actually, it is already obvious from the definition that the concept is contradictory and absurd, either there is no God or there is no free will.
It is also obvious that according to the definition of the “unknowability” of the Creator, it will never be possible under any circumstances to know whether God affects free will or not, you can only believe.
In addition, we can say that the constant attempts of modern believers to “prove at least something” about God are a sign of little believers who do not want to blindly believe in the absurd, as the founding fathers did ))
Well, it's up to everyone to decide what kind of experiment they need. You will need one experience, the other another. The third will repeat the same experiment to make sure and make sure that they don't have free will.
That is, the result of the experiment will depend on its essence and on the subject, but this does not negate the scientific approach here. The denial of free will by the subject is precisely a confirmation of its existence, and it is definitely not profitable for a person who is constrained by reflection, habits and who is satisfied with this to use free will, which manifests itself in changes in such a way of life. Another question is that he is trying to find accomplices) in this kind of worldview, but that's another story.
In general terms, to confirm the existence of free will, you need to set a goal for yourself and monitor what forces a person devotes to achieving it, and how he does it. Free will is part of the human potential, but the realization of this potential is optional. Let's say you, David, don't have to set your goals and achieve them, but you can.