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 11:07 Toxi78 wrote: this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Your thoughts are explained by the chemical and electrical workings in your brain. Much like a computer carries information, your brain is doing the same thing. When you think of something, certain regions of your brain flash up in electrical activity. We know for a fact what certain parts of the brain are used in, for instance math as opposed to thinking of a purple unicorn.
We have no evidence of a duality or anything beyond the material. Where did you get that idea from?
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: The problem I'm having with this model is it's supposedly the 'scientific' side. But it has safely put itself outside the realm of the testable. Because it's not predetermined, it's not actually testable. This machine might have chosen an alternative but because all the conditions must be met and
But since you are learning entity no two situations are ever the same.
We have no way of knowing whether or not their was an alternative because we can never go back to test it repeatedly. And no this is not an argument from ignorance. The observable is the action/behaviour. The interpretation is 'there was no choice after input' or 'there was choice after input'
Look at it this way... If we knew the position and momentum of every single particle in the atmosphere and on the earth, and had sufficient calculation ability, then we could predict the weather. Is this a fair assumption?
Now it's clear we do not have that calculation ability. So suppose someone were to pop up and say, "we can't predict the weather's behavior, so how do we know the weather isn't CHOOSING it's course, and is independent of cause and effect?" Now any person that suggested such a thing would be laughed away, because there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, it's just some random postulation, and besides, we can reasonably predict the weather with limited accuracy, implying there is determinism at work.
Now if you say, "but humans are different than storms..." How are we different? We are both made of particles. We both run according to the laws of the universe. And we both can be predicted with limited accuracy. Did you know there are actuarial tables that can predict the recidivism rate of convicted criminals with fairly good probability? And so just because we cannot scientifically predict an action with 100% assurance you want to reject all of determinism?
And you claim this isn't an argument from ignorance? Of course it is. We cannot predict behavior because we cannot calculate all the factors involved, but that doesn't mean that determinism doesn't exist, or that it makes an exception for the human brain.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
Much of my politics are determined by determinism. For example, I favor rehabilitation of criminals over punishment or retributive justice, because I understand that free will is a myth. I'm not sure specifically what post you are referring to, but in general I believe that a society based upon voluntary behavior is preferable to one based upon coercion. Personal responsibility is not incompatible with determinism, because an awareness of personal responsibility will influence the behavior of the individual in predictable ways, much like government dependency will influence the individual in predictable ways.
On March 06 2012 11:07 Toxi78 wrote: this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Your thoughts are explained by the chemical and electrical workings in your brain. Much like a computer carries information, your brain is doing the same thing. When you think of something, certain regions of your brain flash up in electrical activity. We know for a fact what certain parts of the brain are used in, for instance math as opposed to thinking of a purple unicorn.
We have no evidence of a duality or anything beyond the material. Where did you get that idea from?
no need to be condescending. where is your evidence that there is nothing beyond material? does anyone here actually believe that all our system of thought, culture, feelings, thoughts is just the expression of a cold determinism that decides how the particles in our brains move? and don't get fooled, i study mathematics and physics on a level much higher than 99% of you, but this intelligence also enables me not to fall for sophisms like "you can also do one thing anyway, so whatever the decision is, it means there was no alternative". you can't really believe in that can you?
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
Thinking like a determinist: That individual who committed a crime must have done it for a reason, or they are irrational and should be put in a mental hospital. Because I can't fix someones bad upbringing, luck, or childhood that lead them to that crime, they should still be dealt with.
On March 06 2012 11:07 Toxi78 wrote: this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Your thoughts are explained by the chemical and electrical workings in your brain. Much like a computer carries information, your brain is doing the same thing. When you think of something, certain regions of your brain flash up in electrical activity. We know for a fact what certain parts of the brain are used in, for instance math as opposed to thinking of a purple unicorn.
We have no evidence of a duality or anything beyond the material. Where did you get that idea from?
no need to be condescending. where is your evidence that there is nothing beyond material? does anyone here actually believe that all our system of thought, culture, feelings, thoughts is just the expression of a cold determinism that decides how the particles in our brains move? and don't get fooled, i study mathematics and physics on a level much higher than 99% of you, but this intelligence also enables me not to fall for sophisms like "you can also do one thing anyway, so whatever the decision is, it means there was no alternative". you can't really believe in that can you?
Absolutely do I not believe it as pure fact. Is it the most likely and coherent of all plausible theories? For me? Yes.
edit: sorry, I forgot to answer your question. Burden of proof isn't on me to come up with proof to deny the existence of the non-material, much like it would be silly to disprove the existence of purple space unicorns. No one knows for a fact. I will completely respect your beliefs no matter what, I don't want to seem rude.
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
Thinking like a determinist: That individual who committed a crime must have done it for a reason, or they are irrational and should be put in a mental hospital. Because I can't fix someones bad upbringing, luck, or childhood that lead them to that crime, they should still be dealt with.
Huh? I haven't said anything that you've claimed here. I'm just stating a lack of free will doesn't mean that we should all be careless about what other people do. I don't know how infered my views of prevention, rehabilitation and isolation. Or why I think people do what they do.
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
Thinking like a determinist: That individual who committed a crime must have done it for a reason, or they are irrational and should be put in a mental hospital. Because I can't fix someones bad upbringing, luck, or childhood that lead them to that crime, they should still be dealt with.
Huh? I haven't said anything that you've claimed here. I'm just stating a lack of free will doesn't mean that we should all be careless about what other people do. I don't know how infered my views of prevention, rehabilitation and isolation. Or why I think people do what they do.
I was just adding in, that was directed not to you, but to the whole argument of "No one is responsible because no free will" thing going on.
On March 06 2012 09:25 mcc wrote: Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit". Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
Its not about "feeling" its wrong, its more like an inherent contradiction in the theory. "Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[37]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) In my opinion that is impossible, there is nothing that is real and infinite. They simply have no idea and come up with such bullshit. To me that is no a valid 'rational argument'.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
1) causality might be - like Kant said - something that we with our evolved monkey brains impose on the world to make experience possible. 2) I agree. Especially since we dont know the transitions from micro to macro physics. 3) It does matter, but u said before "How can it not matter? The opinions you hold will influence your behavior." If you are a determinist, that's a pretty problematic right there. Opinions are certainly nothing materialistic, yet they shall influence behaviour. If that is so, how can u have any problems imaging a free will that is not materialistic, yet influences our behaviour? Youre probably gonna tell me opinions are reflected in brain constellations, but the transition from brain constellation to opinion (or from body to mind etc.) is still totally unclear. 4) they do. Those principles are just part of the common and you're world view. I agree that they are true, but i would not agree that they fit or can be applied to the world. Same with mathematics. Mathematics are true, because thats how they are defined, but they rely on axioms that may not be questioned. Mathematics and logics in itself are totally independent from reality, that is the only reason they can be defined as true. Nothing grants that they can be applied to anything real. 5) Yes there is. It might be partly caused, partly uncaused. Under 'uncaused' i understand here, that its caused by transzendental freedom, which starts a new causal chain in the world, that mixes with other causal chains.
On March 06 2012 09:59 liberal wrote: Philosophy students run themselves in illogical psychological circles using concepts which had no basis from the very beginning, and arrive at no conclusions while the world is being explained around them by scientists.
That is dump and unreflected. Philophers have always created frameworks and conditions in which science was made possible. From Aristotle to Descartes and Kant that was always one of their main intentions. We wouldnt have todays science (that could make you believe it would explain the world to you) without those philosophers. At least philosophy students know how our modern world view developed and that its certainly not without flaws. If you know the history of certain "laws", principles and concepts, you would understand better that your view is pretty one-sided and narrow-minded. And my conclusion is we have a free will.
Also I have to disagree with you that humans and "weather" are made of particles, because in fact, no such things exist. There are no smallest particles called atoms or quarks or anything that everything is made of. Space can be divided limitlessly and also things that are in space.
maybe every one of our actions is pre-destined on a higher level. even if it is - who cares. given a sufficiently detailed illusion, it makes no difference to how we feel.
also on the topic of free will, i'll just chuck in this song by tool (one of my favourites). also mirrors to some extent the thoughts expressed in the desert scene in the brothers karamazov by dostoyevsky.
On March 06 2012 09:50 travis wrote: I am not gonna read the thread right now because it's too long, but I would like to contribute a couple of my thoughts about free will (a topic I have thought about a ton).
1.) Realistically, free will is just a term that describes how we interpret things. Determinism doesn't stop free will from existing. What more could there possibly be than the experience of free will. We know of no transcendental phenomena that could explain free will, it's actually unfathomable. Something being predetermined has no bearing on whether or not you choose it, it's a fallacy to think it does.
2.) If for some reason free will must be some sort of transcendental thing for you then it could be explained by each of us (or at least me) having a personal universe that is created around the choices we make (which I believe physicists have talked about this a lot actually). The problem then is "what constitutes a choice" and "who is making the choices"[buddhism 101]. When you ask those questions the concept of free will falls apart again and I would suggest going back to #1
Regardless if determinism could stop free will or not, what makes the existence of free will the default position? A big reason I doubt free will exists personally is probably simply because I haven't heard of anything that indicates that it does.
because people experience choicemaking and people believe what they experience also it crushes people's egos and makes it unreasonable to judge others if things are predetermined
On March 06 2012 09:50 travis wrote: I am not gonna read the thread right now because it's too long, but I would like to contribute a couple of my thoughts about free will (a topic I have thought about a ton).
1.) Realistically, free will is just a term that describes how we interpret things. Determinism doesn't stop free will from existing. What more could there possibly be than the experience of free will. We know of no transcendental phenomena that could explain free will, it's actually unfathomable. Something being predetermined has no bearing on whether or not you choose it, it's a fallacy to think it does.
2.) If for some reason free will must be some sort of transcendental thing for you then it could be explained by each of us (or at least me) having a personal universe that is created around the choices we make (which I believe physicists have talked about this a lot actually). The problem then is "what constitutes a choice" and "who is making the choices"[buddhism 101]. When you ask those questions the concept of free will falls apart again and I would suggest going back to #1
Regardless if determinism could stop free will or not, what makes the existence of free will the default position? A big reason I doubt free will exists personally is probably simply because I haven't heard of anything that indicates that it does.
because people experience choicemaking and people believe what they experience also it crushes people's egos and makes it unreasonable to judge others if things are predetermined
So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness, and it's relation to our subjective feelings.
I mean, I've known that for a long time, it's just funny to hear someone say it outright
Is what you do really even what YOU want to do, or just a environmentally constructed viewpoint that's been filtered a thousand times over?
How can you make a choice that isn't colored with the choice and will of those around you, your society, how you've grown, how you view the world?
You can't, not really, until society fosters that to the point where all of those environmental conflicts are reduced to no longer being conflicts at all, but mirrors of inner desire in the first place.
Arguing that religion makes that impossible is just a preposterous as arguing that religion makes that possible.
Religion is just a hot topic word.
Religion is just a synonym for "system of organized thought that attempts to drive towards something" in the sterilized sense that it should be used in, in such enlightened transcendent conversation. Religion is never meant to be an end unto itself, just a means.
And now my Pragmatist American forefathers will eat me alive
On March 06 2012 12:05 liberal wrote: So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness, and it's relation to our subjective feelings. I mean, I've known that for a long time, it's just funny to hear someone say it outright
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
Free will isn't a fundamental tenant of Christianity, and there's a lot of verses that seem to oppose it, as you've pointed out. Sovereignty (the idea that God is in control of everything in the universe in some way) is essentially the Christian version of determinism, and a lot of people feel there's a much stronger case for that in the bible than there is for rampant free will.
I feel like the main reason people stand by free will so vehemently is because it gives an easy out for hard questions like why God permits people to harm each other, not because there's actually much basis for it.
So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness
Is it more important that the idea is useful or true? It doesn't bother me that ethics aren't true in a scientifically verifiable sense, as long as you keep on not killing me and taking my stuff.
On March 06 2012 12:11 ShatterZer0 wrote: Define freedom.
Is freedom making the choices you want to make?
Is what you do really even what YOU want to do, or just a environmentally constructed viewpoint that's been filtered a thousand times over?
How can you make a choice that isn't colored with the choice and will of those around you, your society, how you've grown, how you view the world?
You can't, not really, until society fosters that to the point where all of those environmental conflicts are reduced to no longer being conflicts at all, but mirrors of inner desire in the first place.
That isn't all necessarily a bad thing, is it? When you talk about your "environment" influencing your choices, it sounds sort of sterile and gross, but wouldn't it be weird if you didn't at least consider the feelings and opinions of your friends, your family, etc. when you're making really serious, big moral decisions? In the same vein, your past experiences, your preferences, things like that, these are part of your choice-making "environment", no? But again, it would be rather strange if you require that "free" choices don't take these into consideration. Obviously the extreme extension of this where all of your choices are locked in by societal pressure or whatever strikes most of us as undesirable, but that doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The problem with the bolded statement is that it's taking an all or none stance, when in fact there is much grey area to cover. Let's take a look at the probabilty within the randomness of quantum mechanics. Let's make a simplistic example to make it as clear is possible. Let's say that within 3 events or "actions", 2 of them are within the realm of free will, while the 3rd falls into the random nature of quantum mechanics. The key here is that the 3 actions can be independent of each other.
As much as people would like to beleive that every single action is interconnected with each other, they don't have to be.
EPT
