Message from @Haze
Discord ID: 736312700145107202
we just dont have a profound understanding of brain function to make a valid assumption even.
That's the thing that I have a problem with. It appears this study simply shows us that we still have a lot to learn about the brain and it's decision making mechanism
The working definition I have of free will is that the entity that is my self is able to be a cause without being restrained by effects
I think when people define free will sometimes they paint this picture of not being constrained by any limitations and not being influenced by anything, but I think that definition would make you a god if it were true.
Of course that kind of free will doesn’t exist
Influenced and determined are different
Obviously we’re influenced
But I think you could make a logical argument for completely dominated as well.
you could, but it doesnt mean it has to be rooted in reality.
So would impulse buying be an example of biological determinism?
no, its based in psychology. which marketing and advertisement exploits.
So here is a situation. I'm at store and I see a candy bar that I like. My impulse is immediately to buy it. I pick it up and then immediately decide I shouldn't and I drop it. Two decisions made about 1 second apart from each other.
How would one explain this relative to the study. Because this does happen
well the two decisions were based on two different lines of thinking. both of them have been considered by your mind at many points in the past. it would depend on which world view you subscribe to, for example "im going to treat myself yolo" or "too much sugar, i shouldnt."
I do understand that its not really speaking relative to the study structure. but in essence there's a lot more complexity that the decision is ultimately built upon.
there's no consideration to the effect of the subconscious on decisions you make and free will. No consideration to basal levels of brain activity, or basal levels of neurotransmitters, or possible gateway effects for amplification or neuronal signaling.
of*
So there is still a lot more research(if even currently possible) before we can truly determine if we can freely choose?
theres a lot more research needed to answer a lot simpler questions, before we ever have what it takes to tackle free will
So would you agree that siting this in an argument against a God given free will is actually futile because of its theoretical nature?
well, I wouldn't say its futile, but I don't think it will lead to a distinct result, it will have the benefit of it being an argumentative exercise i suppose
I just think that to lean on the side of biological determinism is to absolve yourself of the responsibility of making a choice. philosophically speaking I dont think its beneficial
What do you think of the Pangburn pleasure drive hypothesis?
I haven't looked into it or read
is there a link?
No but I'm sure if you ask Travis he'll gladly spell it out. I think he hypothesizes that the choice that you make will ultimately be the one that results in the most pleasure.
hmm, i wouldnt like to say what i think unless i know more about what he hypothesizes
because from what you said, one could easily make the counter-argument that people make choices that lead to miserable dead ends all the time.
It would seem that way at least a lot of the time
But I would argue that a moral foundation could counter the pleasure drive
again, I dont know the specifics of his hypothesis, but if its just as simple as you laid it out, then certainly that would be an argument.
I'm sure it is more than that but that is the basic principle as far as I can tell
Ther did no decision you can make that couldn’t be correctly categorized as an effect of causes that occurred previously in your life
But you don't think that the building up of a strong moral foundation could counter the effect of those occurrences?
Okay let’s go through this then
A strong moral foundation is just a schema for decision making
At even causes one to build up such a foundation? Your parents, society, natural temperament aka outside causes
So you don't believe an immoral person can reach a point in his/her life and choose at that point to become a moral person?
You could
But that would happen due to some shift in outside circumstance
One sees the error in their ways. But they see it for a reason. And they have to see it to change. Outside cause