|
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 11 2012 06:44 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 03:42 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:
Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down? The problem is the same experiment can be done with a computer program instead, which we would all agree has no free will. Let's say the computer program is given an input either 0 and 1 and gives the opposite output. So if it gets 0 it gives you a 1 and vice versa. Now you use some machine to find out which output you'll get in the future and give that as the input to the computer program. So you can see there's a contradiction here because the computer will always give you the opposite number. This issue here is that future actions have an effect on the past which violates causality. It makes more sense to look at the world from a quantum mechanical perspective than hard determinism because it doesn't have these contradictions. True, you can write a computer program that gives a predetermined output in response to an input. However, you can't then expand that program to analyze it's own code and return the output it is not supposed to return, because any output is what the code tells the program to return. The thought experiment I put forward relies quite heavily on the future being predetermined. I would argue that if there is some unpredictable phenomenon affecting human decision making, you can call that free will.
Sorry for the confusion but I didn't mean the computer program was the same machine as the one that could determine the future. Let's say there was a machine that could determine the future and then there's a completely different machine that only runs this piece of code I talked about. So it takes the output of the first machine and inputs it to the 2nd machine and reverses the number.
|
On March 11 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:
Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down?
it is a paradox because you cannot have a machine process the reactions of something that has more moving parts than the machine has switches (0-1 binary switches)
so the situation you describe cannot exist for that reason, hence its paradoxical nature
|
On March 11 2012 06:41 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 05:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:33 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:03 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 04:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 04:14 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 03:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 03:25 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 01:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists. Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition. The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics. TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics. I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things. There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify: If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists. If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist. Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another. I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about. If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not. The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen. These are contradictions. Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction. I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all. No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking.
I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not".
Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined.
This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best a probabilistic understanding. Problem of induction in a nutshell.
|
calm down, if you have good arguments you wont need to force others to acknowledge your points.
I think the main problem is:
Does a configuration of the aggregation of variables in the universe (conditions) which have a relation to the subject 'pre'determine its actions (change of conditions) or vice versa.
Thats why I think the 'chicken and egg' paradox fits well, what was first, the 'change of conditions' or the 'conditions' itselves which lead to a 'change of conditions'?
|
On March 11 2012 06:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 06:41 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:33 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:03 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 04:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 04:14 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 03:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 03:25 L3gendary wrote:
[quote]
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists. Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition. The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics. TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics. I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things. There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify: If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists. If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist. Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another. I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about. If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not. The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen. These are contradictions. Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction. I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all. No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking. I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not". Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined. This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best probabilistic. Problem of induction in a nutshell.
But the probability of it occurring otherwise is inherently 0 in the classical deterministic sense. The fundamental laws of classical physics do not describe "actions" but trajectories that obey conservation of momentum and energy. So every thing that exists within the universe follows a continuous path outlined by these laws. In more complex systems like robots or animals or people its not as simple as a ball going through the air but a result of electrical motion. To suggest other possibilities is to suggest that one or more particles took a different path than it should have according to laws of physics. This is why the probability of these hypotheticals is exactly 0 with this world view.
It is only non-zero in quantum mechanics but QM but doesn't allow for local hidden variables. So it could not depend on anything including someone's will, and in fact would mean that people are partially at the mercy of these "dice rolls".
|
Another important question is how does a human without 'free will' determine to suicide?
[There is a german metaphor called someone has chosen the 'Freitod' which means someone has taken his/her own life (free will to suicide).]
|
On March 11 2012 07:26 BillClinton wrote:
Another important question is how does a human without 'free will' determine to suicide?
[There is a german metaphor called someone has chosen the 'Freitod' which means someone has taken his/her own life (free will to suicide).] Don't see how suicide is different that other actions from a no free will point of view.
|
On March 11 2012 07:00 BillClinton wrote:
calm down, if you have good arguments you wont need to force others to acknowledge your points.
I think the main problem is:
Does a configuration of the aggregation of variables in the universe (conditions) which have a relation to the subject 'pre'determine its actions (change of conditions) or vice versa.
Thats why I think the 'chicken and egg' paradox fits well, what was first, the 'change of conditions' or the 'conditions' itselves which lead to a 'change of conditions'?
I think that point is actually a great way to discern between the two notions of deterministic causation in the universe.
|
I always find it interesting how athiests attribute so many godlike qualities to the universe, such as the laws of physics and the randomness OP talks about. Makes me wonder who really believes what sometimes...
|
On March 11 2012 07:47 Forester wrote:
I always find it interesting how athiests attribute so many godlike qualities to the universe, such as the laws of physics and the randomness OP talks about. Makes me wonder who really believes what sometimes... Can you elaborate on what those godlike attributes are and how they are applied to the universe by atheists?
edit
To clarify: Since you find it interesting and it's somewhat related to free will we can discuss how opinions tend to form if you can be more specific in what you meant.
|
On March 11 2012 07:09 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 06:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 06:41 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:33 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:03 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 04:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 04:14 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 03:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics. I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things. There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify: If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists. If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist. Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another. I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about. If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not. The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen. These are contradictions. Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction. I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all. No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking. I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not". Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined. This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best probabilistic. Problem of induction in a nutshell. But the probability of it occurring otherwise is inherently 0 in the classical deterministic sense. The fundamental laws of classical physics do not describe "actions" but trajectories that obey conservation of momentum and energy. So every thing that exists within the universe follows a continuous path outlined by these laws. In more complex systems like robots or animals or people its not as simple as a ball going through the air but a result of electrical motion. To suggest other possibilities is to suggest that one or more particles took a different path than it should have according to laws of physics. This is why the probability of these hypotheticals is exactly 0 with this world view.
That rests on the assumption that the motion of every single atom in our body will directly influence its meta-behavior and actions of the self as a whole such as leading to one throwing the ball instead of not throwing it. It's similar to the butterfly effect except, but it's merely a possibility that a small event in initial conditions can have major consequences, not a necessity.
As a hypothetical example, perhaps the flap of a butterflies wings could in fact lead to a tsunami across the world at a later time, but it is not a necessity that every single flap of every butterflies wings will cause a tsunami across the world. Likewise, just because every single particle acts according to the laws of physics within our body doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothetical probability of alternate events occurring in reality such as not throwing the ball would have necessarily have also been 0. Also, (perhaps this is related, perhaps not) keep in mind that our current understanding of physics is not absolute.
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo 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.
On March 05 2012 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote:
how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice. That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it. I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly? Can someone clarify?
There's another reason to believe in free will.
If man is not allowed to make his own actions, and is governed by his DNA, the way he was raised, and the laws of physics, then there's nothing left up to "him" to decide. In that scenario, a "man" is no longer in control of his body, and is thus not responsible for his actions.
If free will doesn't exist then a murderer is not guilty of a crime because he didn't chose to commit it. He is guilty of having the DNA to be capable of murder and the nurtured instinct to murder. So why is he punished for conditions outside of his control?
If I am just a product of my environment, then why isn't my environment responsible for my actions? and on that same thought, why would my parents or society be responsible for their actions? Didn't they just do as they are programmed to do via DNA, their upbringing, and their limits within the laws of physics?
Why should I feel proud of my achievements if they were destined to me from the get go? or why should I feel ashamed of my failures? After all, it's not my fault they happened.
At some level you have to agree that we have access to the decisions we make, otherwise we're not responsible for them, and we should be able to do what we want, when we want it, without fear of repercussions.
Voltaire once wrote that, "If god didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him." I feel the same argument should be applied to Free will as well.
|
Why can't we all just get along 
|
On March 11 2012 08:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:09 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 06:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 06:41 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:33 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 05:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 05:03 L3gendary wrote:On March 11 2012 04:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 11 2012 04:14 L3gendary wrote:
[quote]
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions.
To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another. I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about. If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not. The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen. These are contradictions. Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction. I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all. No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking. I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not". Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined. This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best probabilistic. Problem of induction in a nutshell. But the probability of it occurring otherwise is inherently 0 in the classical deterministic sense. The fundamental laws of classical physics do not describe "actions" but trajectories that obey conservation of momentum and energy. So every thing that exists within the universe follows a continuous path outlined by these laws. In more complex systems like robots or animals or people its not as simple as a ball going through the air but a result of electrical motion. To suggest other possibilities is to suggest that one or more particles took a different path than it should have according to laws of physics. This is why the probability of these hypotheticals is exactly 0 with this world view. That rests on the assumption that the motion of every single atom in our body will directly influence its meta-behavior and actions of the self as a whole such as leading to one throwing the ball instead of not throwing it. It's similar to the butterfly effect except, but it's merely a possibility that a small event in initial conditions can have major consequences, not a necessity. As a hypothetical example, perhaps the flap of a butterflies wings could in fact lead to a tsunami across the world at a later time, but it is not a necessity that every single flap of every butterflies wings will cause a tsunami across the world. Likewise, just because every single particle acts according to the laws of physics within our body doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothetical probability of alternate events occurring in reality such as not throwing the ball would have necessarily have also been 0. Also, (perhaps this is related, perhaps not) keep in mind that our current understanding of physics is not absolute.
The butterfly effect (chaos theory) is deterministic. So a certain set of initial condition will lead to the same effect even a chaotic one, it cannot lead to multiple things. You can't speak about every butterfly's flapping their wings at any time. Each of those instances involve different conditions. The butterflies are in different positions, at different times, they flap their wings at different angles and elevation and at different strength and so on and so on. These are all different initial conditions.
I think you're confusing the difference between determinism and predictability. Just because we lack the ability to track every particle in the universe doesn't mean they dont follow these laws of motion (again strictly speaking about classical physics). That is more a limit on our instruments than our understanding.
|
yeah i'm still on l3gendary's side, your definition of free will has no "free," ggtemplar. you seem to be referring to the perception of choice and nothing else
|
On March 05 2012 21:58 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:51 Skilledblob wrote:On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote:
@ Skilledblob
It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is.
We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move.
Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect.
Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is. You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
how is that any different from believing in a religion and thinking your not in control but god is?
|
On March 11 2012 08:47 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:58 Timmsh wrote:On March 05 2012 21:51 Skilledblob wrote:On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote:
@ Skilledblob
It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is.
We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move.
Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect.
Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is. You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll. how is that any different from believing in a religion and thinking your not in control but god is?
a lot of religions believe their gods have wills and disobeyable rules and such; the laws of physics operate in no such way.
|
I feel bad if these things have already been mentioned in this thread, I just read the topic and the first post and then posts on this last page but...
First note: if you haven't read the works between st augustine and spinoza I highly suggest checking them out as they both try to make valid points on whether free will exists or doesn't exist.
Second note: there's a great article in the Ny times that came out maybe 2 years ago (do we have free will: yes it's the only choice just do a google search for it) that explains some of the moral issues that people are confronted with and whether or not some decisions are made with free will or not.
Third note: Every cognitive science in the world, EXCLUDING physics (specifically quantum physics) has found some level of proof that proves that the universe is deterministic, everything happens for a reason which can in effect be predicted based on certain facts. Quantum physics on the other hand has a particular facet of it that specifies in the study of probability and events at the subatomic level. As such a good way to describe it would be: things are most likely to occur one way but... maybe they don't some times.
Finally, I tend to gravitate towards there being some level of free will, but it's kind of a mix. It just makes more sense that way from the things I've read and the opinions I've made as such.
|
On March 10 2012 14:16 Warillions wrote:
god is fake. free will is fake. we are all programmed variants of nature.
Your argumentation seems to me as good as: "God is the almighty creator, free will exists because god gave it to us, we are the top of the nature because we have souls and go to heaven".
|
On March 11 2012 09:22 Mente wrote:
Third note: Every cognitive science in the world, EXCLUDING physics (specifically quantum physics) attempt to prove that the universe is deterministic, everything happens for a reason which can in effect be predicted based on certain facts. Quantum physics on the other hand is the study of probability and as such attempts to explain that things are most likely to occur one way but... maybe they don't some times.
such bold statements about cognitive science and physics. quantum physics is not the study of probability, it's the study of the very small. probability waves are just one of QM's many tools to describe how very small things work.
and i'd be surprised if you could find me a cognitive scientist who claims the field is attempting to prove that the universe is deterministic.
like bro you calling THIS
+ Show Spoiler +Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena where the action is of the order of Planck constant; quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the atomic and subatomic scales, the so-called quantum realm. It provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. In advanced topics of quantum mechanics, some of these behaviors are macroscopic and only emerge at very low or very high energies or temperatures. The name "quantum mechanics" derives from the observation that some physical quantities can change only by discrete amounts, or quanta in Latin. For example, the angular momentum of an electron bound to an atom or molecule is quantized.[1] In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave–particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons, electrons and other atomic-scale objects.
The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function called the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Mathematical manipulations of the wavefunction usually involve the bra-ket notation, which requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear functionals. The wavefunction treats the object as a quantum harmonic oscillator and the mathematics is akin to that of acoustic resonance. Many of the results of quantum mechanics are not easily visualized in terms of classical mechanics; for instance, the ground state in the quantum mechanical model is a non-zero energy state that is the lowest permitted energy state of a system, rather than a more traditional system that is thought of as simply being at rest with zero kinetic energy. Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities, according to John Wheeler.
The earliest versions of quantum mechanics were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century. At around the same time, the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light (as updated by Einstein) first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as quantum theories of matter and electromagnetic radiation. The early quantum theory was significantly reformulated in the mid-1920s by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and their associates, and the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr became widely accepted. By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, with a greater emphasis placed on measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics has since branched out into almost every aspect of 20th century physics and other disciplines such as quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics and quantum information science. Much 19th century physics has been re-evaluated as the classical limit of quantum mechanics, and its more advanced developments in terms of quantum field theory, string theory, and speculative quantum gravity theories.
you calling THIS probability?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
