|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 06 2012 01:42 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote:
The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will. It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works. Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles. I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG. um, Immovable Mover? open a book lol
What ? Can you go into detail what are you actually trying to say ?
|
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote:
Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
|
This OP is surprisingly similar to a post I made a while back. Here's the repost, to add my 2 cents to the discussion:
On November 30 2011 06:50 liberal wrote:
As a society we like to cling to this idea that we have free will and choice, instead of simply being products of biology and environment. When someone is totally insane, it makes it clear that their choices aren't really being chosen, so much as dictated by what they ARE. When it is made clear that people don't actually have this thing called "free will," whatever that even means, then we suddenly become aware that punishing people for what they are is not right, because people do not choose what they are anymore than they choose their parents or nation or height. Then we immediately forget what the insane person taught us, and go right back to throwing "sane" people who have "free will" back into prison for life.
Let's ponder how absurd this notion of "free will" is...
Every event that can ever occur in the universe will necessarily fall into one of two categories: Caused or Uncaused. Things which are caused are necessarily determined, that's practically what "caused" means. Things which are not caused are necessarily arbitrary, that's practically what "undetermined" means.
Now what is human behavior? Caused or uncaused? Determined or arbitrary? It has to be one or the other, because what is the alternative? What is this "free will" which is neither caused nor uncaused, neither determined nor arbitrary? It is metaphysical voodoo, philosophical astrology... it is nonsense and a meaningless notion.
Still, we'd rather just "rehabilitate" those we determine to not have free will, and "punish" those we determine who do. That's essentially the difference between the legal definition of sanity and insanity. The notion of "insanity" is simply a means of removing the most obvious examples of determinism dictating human behavior from the rest of humanity, so that we can go on denying it's existence.
|
France782 Posts
On March 06 2012 01:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:42 Kuja wrote:On March 05 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote:
The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will. It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works. Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles. I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG. um, Immovable Mover? open a book lol What ? Can you go into detail what are you actually trying to say ?
Is it Aquinas logos or the earlier Aristotle principle?
|
The thing which I think is even more damning in terms of free will is the idea that people who claim we have free will are saying we are more than the sum of our causes, which to be honest is kind of ridiculous and is never said in other cases, and I would say the only reason people claim that we are free is either due to rhetoric and them not having considered it or the fact that maybe it is just more attractive of a thing to believe.
I think John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" is insightful on freedom though, as politically he is a libertarian but he is a soft determinist when it come to free will arguments.
|
On March 06 2012 01:35 Hypertension wrote:Multiple universes don't give you free will though. You get to make all possible decisions, but they were still pre-determined by the state of the universe prior, not something you get to "choose".
I don't get your point here. In order for me to have a choice between picking up a ball and walking by, I do need a ball to exist and I need to walk towards that ball.
There are a lot of valid objections to multiverse as a representation of free will, for example the fact that another universe exists where I turned into vapor 10 feet away from the ball and dispersed before ever getting to it, which is not a choice I believe I would make.
(I cannot prevent any of the alternatives)
But the definition of the universe at the moment of the choice is a given for any definition of free will. The universe and its state is fully defined and you have in your mind alternatives and their consequences. The question is mainly to know
- if more than one alternative at that point of balance may happen (this is the case in our current physics - if not, free may still exist with another definition)
- if there is something that can be defined as "me" that can select one of the alternatives to happen (which is a matter of faith at some level)
|
On March 06 2012 00:40 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 00:37 Deleuze wrote:On March 06 2012 00:32 koreasilver wrote:
Is Harris even introducing any new ideas in this? Or this is just another pop book. Pop book. I'd be very surprise to hear of any new developments in this area. The End of Faith has a very revealing analysis of torture and subjectivity. But overall it is polemic. Yeah, I've been reading literature on this topic for a little while and there was basically nothing conclusive. I doubt I would even touch this book since it's just going to be a bad version of academic literature that leads to nowhere.
Sadly so. I really get irritated by pop philosophy and pop science books that have a tendancy mystify and misrepresent theory.
What irks me even more though is that this thread consists almost purely of people quoting different wikipedia articles at one another.
On March 06 2012 00:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:51 Deleuze wrote:On March 05 2012 23:43 Chibithor wrote:On March 05 2012 22:45 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:39 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:29 radscorpion9 wrote:On March 05 2012 22:25 ooni wrote:Here is how I see it... HERE WE GO Imagine a machine that can predict the future by 100% or very close to it it should be considered 100%, let us say this machine exists and figures out the outcome by "pre-determined" data. IF (<- note the big if) a such machine was possible to build and one does the opposite, that person would have acquired "free will" (if one defines free will as changing the course of the future by a choice). If you are going to argue, "you do not have all the data, the data of the last choice was not included..."; That does not matter since everything is supposely 'predetermined', the last choice should have been predicted by the data at that point. If it cannot be predicted by the machine 2 possible futures exist depending on the person's choice  Well I believe humans or other animals with lessor intelligence is a crappier version of this machine. They can predict somewhat what will happen and act upon it, and has the free will to not to act upon it or act differently. What if that machine told the person what kind of sandwich they would have the next morning. If everything is determined, would it be fair to say that the person will always have that sandwich? If the machine told me which sandwich I was going to eat, do I believe that I would be physically incapable of choosing otherwise? I was thinking of that a while ago. Not sure if its 100% logical. (The reaction to hearing the data should have also been factored in, right?) No that's the thing, the person could choose otherwise, it is a possible scenario. Thus a machine that supposely determine the future (which is possible because everything is supposely "predetermined") is only one scenario, if it wants to be 100% correct it will need to produce 2, an alternative future depending on the choice the person makes. The reaction after hearing the data is not a data that is required, since everything is predetermined, it should be obvious for the machine to figure out what the decision will be (that decision should be predetermined). Oh btw, could someone debunk this idea? I always want to hear the people's thoughts on it. Assuming a person would not follow the machine's predictions, I guess it'd go into an infinite loop First it would calculate the first prediction, say: The person will eat in the next five minutes. Then it would calculate the reaction of the person to said prediction: The person will not eat in the next five minutes. Then it would either A) Calculate the reaction to the upper prediction, and the reaction to this prediction and so forth. or B) Discard the first predictions altogether. Since the first prediction is now false and will not be sent out by the machine, the second one is false as well, as it relies on the person seeing the first result. After this, maybe it'd give an error or start over. Or it could just predict that the nonsense above would happen and not bother with it at all. I'm kind of rambling about stuff I don't know much about, so there are probably errors in my train of thought, but whatever. You wanted thoughts, here you go! It is a record that breaks the record player. I presume your almost direct quote means you have read GEB  To elaborate the point: such a machine cannot exist, because self-referential feedback loops "break" computation. The most famous instance of this, is of course, the Halting problem, which was used to show that not everything is decidable.
Hell yeah! Now why don't they make books like THAT anymore!
|
Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself.
|
On March 06 2012 01:54 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:35 Hypertension wrote:Multiple universes don't give you free will though. You get to make all possible decisions, but they were still pre-determined by the state of the universe prior, not something you get to "choose". I don't get your point here. In order for me to have a choice between picking up a ball and walking by, I do need a ball to exist and I need to walk towards that ball. There are a lot of valid objections to multiverse as a representation of free will, for example the fact that another universe exists where I turned into vapor 10 feet away from the ball and dispersed before ever getting to it, which is not a choice I believe I would make. (I cannot prevent any of the alternatives) But the definition of the universe prior is a given at the moment of the choice for any definition of free will. The universe is in a given state, fully defined and you have in your mind alternatives and their consequences. The question is mainly to know - if more than one alternative at that point of balance may happen (this is the case in our current physics - if not, free will may still exist with another definition) - if there is something that can be defined as "me" that can select one of the alternatives to happen (which is a matter of faith at some level)
Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
|
On March 06 2012 01:55 jello_biafra wrote:
Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself.
This doesn't prove that we do or do not have freewill. It could suggest that we subconsciously make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them.
|
I have pre-ordered on Kindle, and will come back after I've read it :D
|
in my opinion it all comes down to the question: do you believe in a soul or not? if you don't believe in a soul, and you do believe that all actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are caused purely by the brain, then it makes sense to claim that there is no free will for a variety of reasons. if you believe that there is something else, a "you" that is not tied to your physical body, then the idea of free-will is much more likely. it is as simple as that: do you believe in free-will, or do you not? do you believe in a soul, or do you not? it has nothing to do with trying to explain away evil, or other behaviors as those can be explained in other ways (which i am not interested in explaining)
one more point though, is the use of the word "illusion". usually, an illusion requires three things:
1. a being which is perceiving the "fake"
2. a reality behind the "fake" that is being submerged or missed
3. the illusion or "fake" itself.
i suppose in the argument we would be the being that is perceiving the illusion. the illusion is that we make choices, i suppose. then what is the reality behind the illusion? is it that we don't make choices?
|
On March 06 2012 01:46 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote:
Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts. I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
|
On March 06 2012 01:58 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:55 jello_biafra wrote:
Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself. This doesn't prove that we do or do not have freewill. It could suggest that we subconsciously make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them.
If your decisions are subconscious, then you don't control them, which means you don't have free will...
|
On March 06 2012 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
in my opinion it all comes down to the question: do you believe in a soul or not? if you don't believe in a soul, and you do believe that all actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are caused purely by the brain, then it makes sense to claim that there is no free will for a variety of reasons. if you believe that there is something else, a "you" that is not tied to your physical body, then the idea of free-will is much more likely. it is as simple as that: do you believe in free-will, or do you not? do you believe in a soul, or do you not? it has nothing to do with trying to explain away evil, or other behaviors as those can be explained in other ways (which i am not interested in explaining)
one more point though, is the use of the word "illusion". usually, an illusion requires three things:
1. a being which is perceiving the "fake"
2. a reality behind the "fake" that is being submerged or missed
3. the illusion or "fake" itself.
i suppose in the argument we would be the being that is perceiving the illusion. the illusion is that we make choices, i suppose. then what is the reality behind the illusion? is it that we don't make choices?
Peter van Inwagen has an essay about free will where he argues that the problem is metaphysical in nature. That is to say, even in the absence of corporeal substances, the problem of free will exists. It exists for Angels, it exists for God; it is inescapable. Even God's and Angel's have to make some sort of decision, even if it isn't a physical one. To change states, to create the world, to answer prayers, etc. Which follows the basic problem of determinism/indeterminism.
|
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote:
Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
|
On March 06 2012 02:06 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
in my opinion it all comes down to the question: do you believe in a soul or not? if you don't believe in a soul, and you do believe that all actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are caused purely by the brain, then it makes sense to claim that there is no free will for a variety of reasons. if you believe that there is something else, a "you" that is not tied to your physical body, then the idea of free-will is much more likely. it is as simple as that: do you believe in free-will, or do you not? do you believe in a soul, or do you not? it has nothing to do with trying to explain away evil, or other behaviors as those can be explained in other ways (which i am not interested in explaining)
one more point though, is the use of the word "illusion". usually, an illusion requires three things:
1. a being which is perceiving the "fake"
2. a reality behind the "fake" that is being submerged or missed
3. the illusion or "fake" itself.
i suppose in the argument we would be the being that is perceiving the illusion. the illusion is that we make choices, i suppose. then what is the reality behind the illusion? is it that we don't make choices? Peter van Inwagen has an essay about free will where he argues that the problem is metaphysical in nature. That is to say, even in the absence of corporeal substances, the problem of free will exists. It exists for Angels, it exists for God; it is inescapable.
i haven't read the essay and am not familiar with any argument saying that it does, so i do not know how to respond to this. i can say that just because someone can argue a thing or doubt a thing does not necessarily make that thing questionable.
|
It's all laid out a certain way for certain reasons. Otherwise it wouldn't all work. But, We have freewill in certain aspects. But probably we could have a lot more freewill, but we only know so much about the brain. So unlocking more knowledge of the actual thing that gives us consciousness. Would probably allow for more freedom.
It would be like getting a computer upgrade, Not much different. More computer space, speed etc = more freedom.
My 2 cents personal thoughts on this cool topic!
=]
|
On March 06 2012 02:08 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote:
Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes. Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway. I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
Only one is consistent. The one that you will pick. Free will only comes to you a priori - all actions coming up to your particular choice seem to be free. But this is because you lack an a posteori view of it; upon acting, you shall be able to discover the motives of your action that were ultimately determined.
|
I don't understand all this computer chair philosophy that makes the non-existence of God so evident. Atheism is (or should be) the result of differing epistemologies. It is in no way the 'plain truth' of the world that there is no God. Those, (myself included) who choose to deny Gods existence should do so because they believe it is inconsistent with the way mankind exists to believe in a God, which is to say if we abide by logic and rationality for 99.99% of our understandings of the world (hence the incredibly asinine analogy of the flying spaghetti monster or fairies), then we say it is a superior presumption to say that God doesn't exist than to say that he does. Hume covered all of this in his first enquiry; this understanding isn't new and shouldn't surprise people.
However, belief in God is not logically inconsistent. I don't understand how atheists can get this through their heads. God is a presupposition to no greater a degree than not-God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
