Quote from RDThe logic i was referring to is that IF we have (free) will (which basically all of humanity blindly assumes), than it is only logical we have a soul.
Again, this is an assumption and a leap of faith. Explain it instead of just assuming it's true or "logical."
If you have no control over the moment your thoughts are born, then you have no free will. In this infinitely short moment we simply cant consciously make choices. It would be like blinking your eye and halfway thru deciding to stop it. This either means we are just drones reacting to worldly impulses or there is actually something intelligent and conscious controlling our will. Is that a good enough explanation?
You are now simply assuming that once a proces of reacting to the world has started, a human being can not interfere (because of consciousness for example). Why wouldn't it be possible for a being to make a fundamentally free choice later in life, breaking the circle? Your reasoning is therefor based on the assumption (which is basically the same as the former) that humans cannot go against the laws of nature and are simply processing units of worldly impulses. You're using the assumption of no free choices to prove that there's no free choices.
To be able to control your line of thinking, you would have to be able to understand and perceive your own thoughts before they are created. In other words, you would have be the chef d'oeuvre of an unborn egg and thoughtlessly control your thoughts.
Breaking the circle is only an illusion because breaking it is part of it. Your decision to break it has a reason, and this reason is based on thoughts which are part of the circle.
A paradoxic example for this paradigm, youre hungry and see 3 donuts, 1 pink and 2 black. Your first thought is to eat them, you have no control over this thought because its an impulse. Youre second thought is youre overweight. You have no control over this thought either, it is based on the memory of a recent heart attack. Youre decision not to eat the donuts is based off 2 thoughts you had no control over. What makes you think you broke the circle?
"Your decision to break it has a reason"
This assumption is only based on the assumption that there are no fundamentally free thoughts. My point still stands.
Quote from DaanO"Your decision to break it has a reason"This assumption is only based on the assumption that there are no fundamentally free thoughts.
Its not an assumption. You simply cant think of something without thinking about it. Thats logic. Its actually your assumption that this is an assumption. Btw i am not assuming there are no fundamentally free thoughts. Im sure there are, but can you consciously decide what they are? Can you think about them while they are born, like you think about a complex mathematical riddle? And if you cant, what can? Thats what i call the soul. If these thoughts were really free , then there is nothing controlling them or creating them, and the only logical conclusion is that we are robots.
I suggest you use my donut example to explain where exactly the assumption is.
"You simply cant think of something without thinking about it."
Please explain this sentence, it makes no sense to me and i won't comment on the rest before i understand this one. I do however get the feeling that you're oversimplifying the whole proces of thoughts here, based on the thought (i can not know whether this is an assumption of not) that thoughts are a lineair proces instead of a whole of spontaneous activity of elements that are a part of a whole of thoughts. This thought is an essential part of the theory that no fundamental free thoughts are possible. Yet again, you are using a part of what is questioned to prove it, yet you disguise it whether you see it yourself or not.
Don't get me wrong, i have an open mind to both philosophical views, i've read work from philosophers from Descartes to Sartre (including their views on a free thought) but my mind is not open for views that contradict themselves, or thoughts where the explanandum overlaps with the explanans.
"'Whither is the man with free will'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early then,' he said; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."
Quote from DaanO"You simply cant think of something without thinking about it."Please explain this sentence, it makes no sense to me and i won't comment on the rest before i understand this one. I do however get the feeling that you're oversimplifying the whole proces of thoughts here, based on the thought (i can not know whether this is an assumption of not) that thoughts are a lineair proces instead of a whole of spontaneous activity of elements that are a part of a whole of thoughts. This thought is an essential part of the theory that no fundamental free thoughts are possible. Yet again, you are using a part of what is questioned to prove it, yet you disguise it whether you see it yourself or not.
Don't get me wrong, i have an open mind to both philosophical views, i've read work from philosophers from Descartes to Sartre (including their views on a free thought) but my mind is not open for views that contradict themselves, or thoughts where the explanandum overlaps with the explanans.
What i am trying to tell you boils down to me saying that 1+1+1+1+1=5, and your response is that i am using the number 5 to prove that 6 is true. My conclusion isnt that there are no free thoughts, or that free thoughts are impossible or that thinking is a linear proces. And what i am trying to make you understand is not the conclusion but the logic.
I cant explain it anymore simple than this. IF you agree that the thoughts you can perceive in your head are made of many many other thoughts which you usually dont perceive, than you agree to evrything i have said, even the UFO threads. And NO my conclusion isnt that free thoughts are impossible or that thought is linear.
It basically boils down to a chicken or egg kinda thing. What was first, conscious thought or thought? My answer is thought, because consciousness is made of thoughts.
Btw i have no idea what sartre or descartes wrote 
i know who they are just not what they say about souls 
Quote from RDi know who they are just not what they say about souls
Then you have no basis for discussing philosophy.
Now now Scraps, don't get "elitistic" on me.
Descartes view on the soul, the very short version:
The soul is exclusive for humans and is responsible for our thoughts and resides in the pineal gland.
Sartre didn't from a philosophy perspective go into the soul that much.
He was into existentialism which rejects some fundamentals of Descartes philosophical views though.
Think Sartre thought of the Soul as the sum of actions of a person.
That the soul somehow makes the decision instead of the brains is to me is a totaly unfounded notion. Nothing but my imagination would support such an idea.
Quote from ScrapsThen you have no basis for discussing philosophy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosophy
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
Quote from mawibseThat the soul somehow makes the decision instead of the brains is to me is a totaly unfounded notion. Nothing but my imagination would support such an idea.
But you dont know what the soul is do you?
Assuming there is a part of the brain that makes our decisions and is the root of our egos, what would you call it? The soul?
Quote from RDBut you dont know what the soul is do you?
For the purposes of thoughts and decisions, yes I know what the soul is, a wish for something more comforting, a me that would last for eternity.
Quote from RDAssuming there is a part of the brain that makes our decisions and is the root of our egos, what would you call it? The soul?
No, the Hyperdrivemotivator.
But there is no point in assuming there is a single part of the brains that makes our decisions and is the root of our egos, since we pretty much need the whole brains for that.
Like I said before, why would I need to imagine a non-physical entity that makes me conscious, have thoughts and make my decisions when the brains, according to most scientists and cognitive researchers, does it fine already?
Quote from mawibseLike I said before, why would I need to imagine a non-physical entity that makes me conscious, have thoughts and make my decisions when the brains, according to most scientists and cognitive researchers, does it fine already?
To philosophise about free will 
Quote from RDTo philosophise about free will
Oh... So you dont think free will is possible with "just" the brains making the decisions?
Well there are some really big stumble blocks of free will for me even if you add a soul to the equation.
What makes the souls decisions more "free" then the brains?
Quote from mawibseOh... So you dont think free will is possible with "just" the brains making the decisions?
It is only logical that its not 
Well there are some really big stumble blocks of free will for me even if you add a soul to the equation.What makes the souls decisions more "free" then the brains?
IF there is a soul then the possibilities are endless. It could be fully conscious of itself. But its more likely that free will is just an illusion of our subconsciousness. Just look at animals, the thought of being robots never crosses their minds
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
