Free will and unified consciousness
Hello, Your Honor,
I watched a lecture on the meaning and place of free will, and now I understand why proving the non-existence of free will, given the possibility of actions without a cause, but with a purpose (or purpose), is impossible.
But I have a question about the nature of these actions. I am willing to accept the fact that they have no cause, even though it is no more intuitive than absolute randomness, since I have no way of contradicting it, so it is indeed a possibility.
My question is about the purpose of the actions; I will assume that there is no unified consciousness (this is not the topic I would like to discuss right now, but if it needs to be discussed in order to answer the question, I would be happy to (: ) (What I mean by unified consciousness is that there is no one particular thing, like a soul, that can be said to be you; human consciousness has no place where it unites, but consciousness is the collection of all the things that make it up, and their union is a kind of illusion.).
On this assumption, where would the purpose for free will come from? According to my understanding, the purpose for actions that come from free will must be consistent, because if it is inconsistent, and has no causes, then it is random, and we say that free will is not random.
So if the purpose is consistent, and it differs from person to person, then there is a need for something, which is the person, who in a certain way will contain the purpose and act according to it.
To sum up all the swans, my question is this: In your opinion, is free will still possible in a worldview that denies the existence of a unified consciousness? And in such a case, is the question of free will even relevant?
Thank you very much,
colleague.
I’m not sure I understand what it means to have no unified consciousness. That there is no me? I don’t accept this strange claim and in any case I see no point in discussing its implications. The discussion is about whose free will?
What is meant by no unified consciousness is that there is no particular thing that can be pointed to and said to be you; what is meant is that there is no experience for your experiences, but only experiences, and what is called you is actually the space in which experiences happen.
The claim is not that there is no you, but that your consciousness is a combination of many separate elements.
I got the idea from a man named Sam Harris, and I am currently studying it more deeply, so I apologize if the explanation is vague.
I now realize that my understanding of the idea is not yet perfect because I am unable to explain it properly, so I will continue to investigate, and perhaps come back to ask the question in a proper and understandable form (if I continue to study it, of course).
Thanks anyway,
Amit.
Sam Harris is a well-known confused man, and his determination and eloquence sometimes mask this. I don't know what the discussion is about if I don't have free will (it's almost the inverse cogito: I don't exist, therefore I don't think). Materialists and atheists, as they are, get caught up in meaningless verbiage that sometimes gives the impression of being profound and wise. Words words…
I see. I do see some truth in what you say, and agree that materialists and atheists tend to seek explanations that empty existence of any meaning. But I still see something in Harris's words, and I would appreciate it if you could point me (or explain yourself) to a place where I can understand the confusion in his position.
Again, thank you very much for your response so far and in the future.
I haven't seen anything from him for many years and I don't remember. What you brought up in his name is an excellent example.
In what I have brought up on his behalf, I do not see any confusion or illogicality, but I admit that I did not present the claim in a way that allows sufficient understanding for those who have not heard of it before, and for that I am sorry. I will continue to think, and perhaps one day I will return with another question on the matter, but I hope that if there is a hole in the idea I will be able to find it on my own and quickly.
I do not think there is anything more to discuss on the matter, but only room for more research.
Thank you very much for your time and for the quick response, although I was not completely satisfied with your answers, but I believe that the blame here lies with me.
Have a good week and a wonderful evening,
Amit.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
