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 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
It's your environment that offers you the choices you have. I think that's where people tend to get the idea of free will because the environment appears to be chaotic as there's too much unknown information. While you might be aware of all the events that led to you buying an ice cream at an ice cream truck, you will probably not be aware of every event that led to the ice cream truck selling you ice cream. It's also your environment that offers you to not buy ice cream. You don't choose randomly, but you're offered choices randomly.
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
I also feel like, recently, being atheist, super skeptical, anti-government of any kind, anti-free will, and pro science for absolutely everything everywhere has become the "hipster" thing. And this is coming from an atheist at a liberal arts institution.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
going off of the whole idea of "the future predicting machine" or the idea of knowing the future and then doing something different. Though im not sold on the idea that there is NO free will, I do think you cant disprove the argument against it by saying that you were SUPPOSED to do one thing and you did another. I dont think the machine would be able to predict the exact events of the future but rather come up with a percentage chance that certain things would occur. Again this would not prove free will it would just mean at the very beginning of this biological process that our predetermined decision is born from there is a random chance for us to do any of multiple things.
On a side note OP should make a post about what true justice is, or some other heavy philosophical questions =). I love these.
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but fellow Horseman of Sam Harris is Daniel Dennett. He gives a good description of why free will and determinism are not contrary to one another or even opposed. The whole idea of something being inevitable is poorly defined.
It gets tiresome reading all these topics that attack religion or try to attach some misconception that tries to seperate religion from intellect. It's always from the same angle too, especially with Harris. I'm not going to try to defend my beliefs here because I don't have the time to write an essay or the skills to do it justice, but if people are truly interested in a good book on the topic, read The Problem of Pain by Lewis.
I just saw him speak in Boulder, Colorado. In his presentation he had excellent thought out arguments for many of the points brought up in this discussion. If I felt capable of properly articulating them I would but I don't, so I recommend reading his book. That goes for people on both sides of the argument. Also, I highly recommend seeing him speak if you have the chance, I had an excellent time tonight.
On March 06 2012 14:06 DoubleReed wrote: I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but fellow Horseman of Sam Harris is Daniel Dennett. He gives a good description of why free will and determinism are not contrary to one another or even opposed. The whole idea of something being inevitable is poorly defined.
When I watch videos like that, I can help but view it as a person doing their damnedest to squirm their way out of an "inevitable" truth using pure semantics.
There was a much better video someone posted a few pages back. I recommend everyone interested in this issue watch it.
Well that basically leads to Kant's antinomy of free will in relation to universal causality, if you want to concept that free will in a deterministic world. For Dennet as for Harris i can say that i admire their desire to throw the whole discussion from the dawn of Enlightenment 400 years ago into our times and make it an actual subject of controversity, but please don't make the mistake to "beleive!" that this is top of the art science. In fact it is more like the best way to make money in a controversity-hungry market of popular enlightenment literature. But its good to have those kind of conversations and somebody has to be the King where kids start to recognize he's not wearing anything.
And like Fukuyama said 1992, the History is over guys. Sowjetunion is gone, now there is only the torch of freedom resting in the Hands of brave American Soldiers being carried throughout the lands all over the Globe. We will now move on to rational behaviour, being determined by a free market, because humans cant get any more free, but the market can! So please subscribe to harris on twiter (@SamHarrisOrg) and facebook at Sam Harris
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic. There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
"Whadaya know? This <Insert System/Mechanism Here> is ignoring every other system/mechanism in the universe! It's completely acting on its own. It has free will."
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Incoming speculation/armchair neuro: The conflict/indesision might come from a complex pattern of stimulation and inhibition and at some point(s) in the circuitry a level of stimulation/inhibition needs to be reached in order to make a decision and take action. If that level is not reached but your goal is to resolve this decision then perhaps this leads to more brain areas associated with the problem getting activated** (more memories, evaluations, etc) until something wins over... and I don't see how "you" could decide what will win over.
In fact, I think the lack of free will can explain the other things you mentioned such as irrational decisions. Some people can't or have a really hard time choosing the course of action that they would like to take, there are drug addicts out there who really want to quit so they can get their children back, they don't want to use it anymore, they know it's going to ruin their life... yet that compulsion kicks in and they're reaching for the telephone to call their dealer. There are countless of examples of irrational behaviors that are debilitating. So I'm not sure how these decisions that go against reason or nature are clues that point to freewill.
-** I will try to look up studies that might or might not show this (the longer the decision making the more brain activation there is hypothesis), I'm just going with the general trend in neuroimaging studies that the more complex a task becomes the more areas/surface becomes active.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic. There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
"Whadaya know? This <Insert System Here> is ignoring every other system in the universe! It's completely acting on its own. It has free will"
Well that would probably be the day i killed myself. I couldn't live with either of these answers being solid. I want to beleive in free will when educating my children and i want to rely on determinisim when my wife dies.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Incoming speculation/armchair neuro: The conflict/indesision might come from a complex pattern of stimulation and inhibition and at some point(s) in the circuitry a level of stimulation/inhibition needs to be reached in order to make a decision and take action. If that level is not reached but your goal is to resolve this decision then perhaps this leads to more brain areas associated with the problem getting activated (more memories, evaluations, etc) until something wins over... and I don't see how "you" could decide what will win over. In fact, I think the lack of free will can explain the other things you mentioned such as irrational decisions. Some people can't or have a really hard time choosing the course of action that they would like to take, there are drug addicts out there who really want to quit so they can get their children back, they don't want to use it anymore, they know it's going to ruin their life... yet that compulsion kicks in and they're reaching for the telephone to call their dealer. There are countless of examples of irrational behaviors that are debilitating. So I'm not sure how these decisions that go against reason or nature are clues that point to freewill.
These arguments explain perfectly well how things work, but they don't necessarily explain the driving cause. I don't really see how any of your paragraph excludes choice from the scenario.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic.
There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
This. At the moment people aren't even capable of explaining the mechanics by which they imagine free will might work. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems strange to me that, when asked, nobody can give an actual definition of free will without using weird (and ultimately useless) abstractions or fallacious reasoning. Basically, people don't even know what they mean when they say 'free will exists'. I find the whole concept uncoincidentally similar to the concept of a 'soul'. The soul is something for which there is no evidence and which helps to explain nothing, and yet people will continue believing in the soul for no other reason than that they find it comforting (although they won't tell you that). Free will is exactly the same in my opinion.
What's even stranger to me is that there are smart people - philosophers even - engaging in the debate when it seems so obviously stupid. Even Daniel Dennet managed to look... well, pretty retarded in that video. The guy asking him the questions seems to have a better grasp of the issue than him.
I don't know. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this whole debate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic.
There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
This. At the moment people aren't even capable of explaining the mechanics by which they imagine free will might work. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems strange to me that, when asked, nobody can give an actual definition of free will without using weird (and ultimately useless) abstractions or fallacious reasoning. Basically, people don't even know what they mean when they say 'free will exists'. I find the whole concept uncoincidentally similar to the concept of a 'soul'. The soul is something for which there is no evidence and which helps to explain nothing, and yet people will continue believing in the soul for no other reason than that they find it comforting (although they won't tell you that). Free will is exactly the same in my opinion.
What's even stranger to me is that there are smart people - philosophers even - engaging in the debate when it seems so obviously stupid. Even Daniel Dennet managed to look... well, pretty retarded in that video. The guy asking him the questions seems to have a better grasp of the issue than him.
I don't know. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this whole debate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.
Maybe we should focus on answering a specific question, like:
"The last time you ordered food, did you use free will or not?"
1. Explain your train of thought 2. Explain what you think happened in your brain 3. How would a scientist/philosopher/pastor explain what you just did?
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Incoming speculation/armchair neuro: The conflict/indesision might come from a complex pattern of stimulation and inhibition and at some point(s) in the circuitry a level of stimulation/inhibition needs to be reached in order to make a decision and take action. If that level is not reached but your goal is to resolve this decision then perhaps this leads to more brain areas associated with the problem getting activated (more memories, evaluations, etc) until something wins over... and I don't see how "you" could decide what will win over. In fact, I think the lack of free will can explain the other things you mentioned such as irrational decisions. Some people can't or have a really hard time choosing the course of action that they would like to take, there are drug addicts out there who really want to quit so they can get their children back, they don't want to use it anymore, they know it's going to ruin their life... yet that compulsion kicks in and they're reaching for the telephone to call their dealer. There are countless of examples of irrational behaviors that are debilitating. So I'm not sure how these decisions that go against reason or nature are clues that point to freewill.
These arguments explain perfectly well how things work, but they don't necessarily explain the driving cause. I don't really see how any of your paragraph excludes choice from the scenario.
The driving cause? Billions of years of evolution.
I was just replying to some of your statements without getting into my reasoning behind the lack of free will. I will get into that now but only shortly.... basically to have free will as you define it, there would have to be a loci or a set of loci that would make up your "conscience" and somehow, someway, these loci can fire at will ("your" will) to influence how several other parts of the brain are going to work. Or that the brain as a whole is a conscience that is able to independently make a decisions. I don't see how that is possible. It makes more sense to me that this decision making process is fully interdependant on the rest of the brain, thay everything influences eachother and which eventually leads to a decision.
EPT
