Eise

No, it doesn't. The example shows that personality trades can change under the influence of parasites. But the concept of free will (or its counterpart 'coercion') applies to the relation between what you want, and what you do, not just on your character. Say, I have drunk too much alcohol, and under its influence I want to balance on a balustrade of a 100 meter high bridge. Happily enough my friends stop me from that, but that means they are limiting my free will (on good grounds of course) at that moment.

AFAIK this is the way at least some neurologists see it this way, and I think it has its merits. E.g. it gives an explanation of the effect of training. Consciousness is notoriously slow, and where fast action is needed, like in sports, you must train, so that most actions really bypass consciousness. But that has no impact on the matter of free will: the origin of the 'consciousness bypassing action' is still you (that bag of water...), and you will notice when an unconscious action is blocked. Imagine Roger Federer is playing a tennis match, but then somebody comes from behind, and suddenly holds Federer's tennis racket. Federer immediately will notice that his partially unconscious 'trained tennis program' is interrupted, and will be able to report that he just wanted to play the ball in the utmost left corner, before he was blocked. This reporting maybe consciousness after the fact, but that is no problem: as long as you recognise the action as your own, see the motives behind them, you will also recognise when you are blocked, i.e. when you cannot act according your own motives. So the simplest of definitions of free will, being able to do what you want, is not touched by this. It is only the heavily metaphysically loaded definition of 'uncaused consciousness always must cause our actions (and therefore precede it) for an action to be free', that is refuted by such mechanisms. But in a naturalist world view such a definition makes no sense from the beginning. It probably makes no sense at all.

But not in this thread. This is NonScientist's thread about his existential crisis around the problem of free will. Please continue the discussion in 'our' recent thread. 2 Things. In the first place science does not say we have no free will. Only scientists who make methodological unjustified extrapolations, using childish concepts of what free will is, do. In the second place (and iNow could be the most valuable discourse partner here), is that most people who think we have no free will, do not, to say the least, suffer from this belief, and many, much stronger, are positively happy with that. Really, you should explain to me why disbelief in free will necessarily leads to you being in a crisis. Every time somebody uses the 'nothing but' operator (also know as the 'just' operator) you can be sure that he leaves out that what is most important. A steam train is nothing but iron, coal and water. Problem is that a heap of iron and coals, and a lot of water, bring you nowhere. A steam train however does. The essential thing about a steam train is, that it is an object that can transport you. And we can easily see it, e.g. modern electrical trains also can transport you, i.e. the essence lies in the way the object is structured. Same with you: what you are essentially is not your chemical ingredients, but the way they work together. This gives rise to all kind of higher order phenomena: reasons, beliefs, actions, rules, beauty, and last but not least, meaning and free will. Of course this is not the free will of most religions (with the notorious exception of Buddhism): a soul steering the body, overruling even natural causality. It is also not the free will denied by the kind of scientists mentioned above. Both make the error to think that free will must be based on some (meta)physical objects or attributes. Obviously the same error you make. Free will is the capability of yours to let your actions be determined by your own motivations. And believe me, even iNow can do that. Freedom of the will also is not choosing who you are. You are born and grew up with a biological and personal biography, which made you what you are: i.e. you are determined by these. But on their turn, your actions are determined by you. If you do not like brussels sprouts, that cannot be changed. But standing for a buffet you are free not to take them. 'Freedom of the will' is not freedom from previous causes, but freedom to act according who you are. As iNow already noted: of course not. 'You' are the higher order processes running in your body, not your body itself. A train standing still brings you nowhere. So do not identify with a non-moving train; do not identify yourself with the substances you are made of. Most philosophers are compatibilists (Wikipedia), so do not blame them! I am a tiny example of such philosophers.

But I think it is an important question, and I think you really should try to answer this. Many people who say they do not believe in free will live a happy life, without any problem. There are even, also more than enough, people who defend that not believing in free will is a good thing: believing in free will leads to blaming, unjustified punishments, harshness ("Everybody is responsible for his own happiness"), to the heavy kind of free will that Jean-Paul Sartre was defending ('We are doomed to be free'. Yes, there are people who get depressed just by the opposite idea you say you need!). So for me at least there is no necessary connection between what one thinks about free will, and one's happiness, or even having an existential crisis. You are using the word 'pre-determined', which is not the same a 'determined'. I don't know if you are aware of that difference. 'Determined', at least in a naturalistic world view, means that every event follows from the state of the universe just before. 'Pre-determined' has its main usage in certain kinds of religion, especially the mono-theistic ones. God has planned everything, and humans are powerless to change anything. Confusing 'determined' and 'pre-determined' can lead to fatalism. Where we in fact are determined, we tend to see everything as 'pre-determined'. Fatalism is the position that whatever we do,we have no influence. But this is in its extreme a self-refuting position if one supposes determinism. What you decide, and how you act makes a difference per definition. You can doubt on what grounds you decide and act, but not that your actions do make a difference. Fatalism has at most a meaning in the meaning of 'powerless': e.g. I am very hard on the way to become a fatalist about the climate crisis. The powers in people, politicians, companies, etc to continue our present lifestyle are so much stronger than mine (our.. Greta and me...) to want to save the world, that I am close at giving up. And about being a robot: at least your a conscious robot. And that makes a huge difference. To be conscious means, amongst others, that you are aware of reasons to do something, and act according them. If you can, you are free. If you can't, e.g. because your actions are obstructed by others, you are not free.

Don't you think? From here. Please discuss, with good arguments of course.

You forgot something... Italics by me. No. The 'laws of nature' are not 'laws', but abstract descriptions of how nature behaves.

That is not true: some things are unstable.

The inside of a rainbow is always lighter than the outside. But these pictures were made when the sun was low above the horizon, so it was shining red. Therefore also the rainbow itself is mainly red. See this picture, that was obviously made when the sun was still higher above the horizon: I just looked it up: the raindrops reflect both from the backside as from the frontside. The light that reflects from the backside of the raindrops makes the rainbow itself, the light that reflects from the frontside are just reflected, and therefore has the same colour as the incoming light, mainly red in your case. See here.

That is nonsense. In a dream you might discuss with other people too, but those people are produced in your mind. They could even harm you in your dream! There is no rigid argument against solipsism. There is also no rigid argument in favour of solipsism. I think a better question would be what difference it would make for me. I personally think that if you go really into the matter, you will realise there is no practical difference. Philosophy can in some cases show the uselessness of a question. The question about solipsism is such a one in my opinion. But some philosophers might not agree with me...

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say. See here for what philosophy's task is.

It can also give you a more analytical and critical mind. Something for you to study? Not really... But I am doing something useful: I am participating in philosophical questions on the science forum!

Thank you for the accolades. I hope I will not disappoint you. However, you made a lot of statements: o You never had use for philosophy o You never had use for philosophers o You never had respect for philosophy o You never had respect for philosophers Which ones apply? And which did I (hopefully) end? Can you use philosophers now?

No, it isn't. And what do you mean with just speculation? In the first place there are different kinds of speculation: By lack of knowledge about certain facts, one can speculate about what would be the case (e.g. crime cases). Theory developing in science. One tries to find a theory that explains more facts than existing ones, but which empirical verification (or falsification) is still outstanding. Speculation in science however should always be consistent with most known facts. So 'Einstein was wrong!' is a very bad speculation, because relativity has been confirmed by many facts. Not bothered by any real knowledge in the field, propose all kinds of wild ideas. Thinking about reality 'behind the scenes', e.g. questions about what reality really is, about God, etc. Good philosophy is neither of them, accept maybe some questions in the fourth category; but I personally do not favour such kind of questions. Not quit clear what you mean. Philosophy surely is not about empirical reality. For that we have the sciences. And it certainly is not some 'assertion'. But philosophy is the reflection on how we think about reality. Its aim is to uncover the presumptions we use, ambiguities in concepts, and eventually to criticise them. It tries to find out how we think, and how we should think if we want to get at valid conclusions. No, no, and no. None of the 4 forms of speculation above is philosophy. Philosophy is an academic discipline, a training in clear thinking in the domain of reflections on fundamental questions. Thereby it might be that philosophy never finds final answers: but that does not mean it is therefore speculation. One could say philosophy's aim is intellectual insight. As Strange already did, a philosopher would point out to you that you mixup causes and reasons. There are 2 ways you can explain why a building exists: it exists because stones were piled together with the correct cement between them etc. it exists because people needed a place to live in. The first is the question for the cause, the second for the reason. We know that in nature many things exist without a reason, they only have causes. For the universe as a whole the question might not be that clear, but at least there is no logical reason to assume that there is a reason why the universe exists. The philosopher would show you that your '... why ...' (in 'all that exist must have an explanation why they exist') is ambiguous, because it can refer to an explanation in term of causes, or an explanation in terms of reasons. You shift the meaning of what an explanation is between 'Buildings exist because of the builder's reason to build' and 'all that exist must have an explanation why they exist'.

Sorry, I was not very active recently, so I chime in a bit late. The question supposes that science (which science?) has the same object as philosophy. That is just not true. The question is like 'what is louder, red or green?'. Of course philosophy is not always correct. And science is neither. And again, while philosophy and science have different domains of interest, one cannot be a replacement for the other. Depends on which science. Psychology, history, literature, sociology are not so much accurate as e.g. physics. Philosophy surely tries to be as consistent as possible, but again, even if philosophy would be more accurate than physics, it is not a replacement for it, because it has a different research domain. Every science has its philosophical corners, namely there where the concepts or methods that are used in that science are reflected. Sometimes this is necessary, if a science discovers that it does not make progress, and this might be related to its most fundamental concepts or methods. And sporadically an outsider might notice that some aspects of a science are like an emperor without clothes, and sometimes this person is philosopher. But I think this is pretty seldom. So, no, science does not prove philosophy at all. Philosophers however should take care that they do not leave their area of speciality, and propose ideas that are in conflict with established science. If I repeated some answers already given, I was to lazy now to read the complete thread...

Well, intellectual clarity does not mean that it is easy. When physicists say that they have a clear understanding of relativity, that does not mean that everybody can follow them. Yep. Or unable.

Yes, and relativity and QM are also still highly disputed. Look at all those postings of crackpots coming in here! So many more threads on it than on "2+2". I can't help that there are so many crackpots thinking that the problem isn't solved yet. The 'problem' with relativity, QM and the solution of free will, is that they are (partially) counter intuitive. The extra problem with free will is that intuitions are very dear to many people, connected to their answer on the meaning of life, and their world view in general. That is true both for 'hard determinists' and believers in contra causal free will.

Philosophers will not go away. Or better philosophy will not go away. The difference is: there might come a time that people do not want to pay an academic discipline that only strives for intellectual clarity. Of course, every science strives to intellectual clarity, so in this respect philosophy seems to be a discipline without a subject. However, every time science gets into some crisis, like the beginning of QM in the 20th century, or the methodological discussions in sociology, psychology etc, scientists are doing philosophy. They might be best equipped, better than 'general philosophers', but surely, when having fundamental methodological discussions, scientists are not actually doing science: they philosophise. Now, if somebody specialises in such fundamental questions in sciences in general, he is a philosopher. I think you are perfectly able to make the parallels for other philosophical disciplines, like ethics, social philosophy, philosophical anthropology etc. Then there is a big area that is often forgotten by scientists: daily life. As our understanding of nature and ourselves increases, questions about what the consequences for us individuals, change. These questions should be clarified, maybe answered. But as times change, these questions change, and so their answers. So there is no permanent 'body of philosophy', of definite answered questions. It is a mistake to see philosophy as a science. Philosophy is the big reservoir of intellectual techniques, of memories about how people thought about all kind of problems, a training in how to cope with intelligibility problems. It is useful, because the same kind of intelligibility problems rise again and again in a changing society. Philosophers did not develop the scientific method: scientists did. Philosophers clarified it, made it explicit. And so also made it useful for e.g. the demarcation between science and pseudo science. (Be aware: philosophy does not pretend to be a science, so it cannot be a pseudo science.) I already said: philosophy clarifies. I consider the free will problem solved, mainly by clarifying what 'free will' really means. You can start a new thread about free will if you want to...

Now that is a straw man. I would even claim that philosophy didn't invent the scientific method. If someone needs intellectual clarity.

Well, then it least has a purpose. But I do think philosophy offers more, but I already wrote that here. Let me know what you think. OK. Message taken. But then your contribution is as meaningful as e.g. this one. Physics resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the impossibility to know what reality really is behind our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology. If you think this is absurd, then look at all the crackpot theories that are posted here or sent to physicists. You know, it is for those who think that physics tells us what reality really is behind the scenes. It only has nothing to do with what physics really is.

OK, now I see what you mean. Yes, I reacted a bit from anger here. It is my strong suspicion, that arc thinks it, but you are right, he did not state it. But if music is useful, it is in a completely different way than science. Science always has the promise of its use: technology. With technology we can change our environment, we can reach many of our goals with help of science. We can't with music. But music is more or less a value, it makes life worth living, people enjoy music. But if you mean that, then philosophy is also useful. Many people enjoy philosophy, so it is useful. Many people need philosophy to come to terms with life, to find their meaning in life. So in this way, philosophy is not useless at all. But I think arc will not come back at this topic. He just wanted to make a rant, and does not want to discuss this. If he would, he would do something useless... namely philosophy.

No, I didn't. But your answer is so unclear that I still don't know how you interpret "And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology". I interpreted: Astrology is useless. Philosophy is like astrology --> Philosophy is useless (If you like you can also take 'BS' instead of 'useless'.) If arc meant something else he should say so.

Then how do you interpret this sentence?

Beautifully written. It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.

It is hard to be humble... Here and here. See what you think. Note: I am not Doctor. How do you call somebody who finished his study, but did not write a thesis? Bachelor? Oh, man! Then you should see a doctor.

I think one example of why philosophy can be useful is to analyze why not every science can have exactly the same method and criteria for (preliminary) truth, e.g. the differences between physics and history... See the Jesus thread.