|
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 09:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Let me rephrase, there are many instances in cognitive sciences that can be translated into proving the existence (or lack there of) of free will. There whole goal isn't to disprove it. Sorry if I worded it funny; I wrote it in a hurry as I had a grill to watch.
And, Bro, I'm calling one facet of quantum mechanics that.
K, Bro?
|
|
|
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.
You're thinking about things on too much of a molucular level. Whens the last time that you went into a groecry store and thought to yourself that you have no free will of choice of what you buy due to you being limited by the nature of the physics of particles in the universe......Free will does exist on a morality level and even on a decision based level as it has been shown that there are randomness in cells that do allow for some free will in cells to be present if you want to take it all to a molecular level.
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
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.
I'm not sure who originally said the above statement (taken from OP) - if it was the OP, you're wrong. If it was Sam Harris, he's wrong.
Free will is something that cannot be quantified or explained by the laws of science, any more than the concepts of right and wrong can be explained by science. Saying that "the laws of physics determine everything in the universe" is just a bunch of lame hand-waving that's not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. We can definitely explain some of the phenomena that we experience and observe with science, but certainly not everything (gravity, anyone?). Oftentimes people incorrectly refer to a bunch of untested, unprovable hypotheses as "science", when they really shouldn't...I think Harris's claims qualify as untested, unprovable hypotheses, sort of like his own made-up religion.
And by the way, it's incorrect to say that Quantum Mechanics is about "intrinsic randomness" - QM is largely about probability densities and distributions...in other words, if there is randomness in QM, we wouldn't know about it. We would only be able to slap a probability on a given event/occurrence, and leave it at that. Saying anything more than that is forbidden by QM in general, and by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, specifically.
I believe we all have God-given free will...and I snicker to think about how one might live WITHOUT free will. You would never be responsible for your actions - wouldn't that be great? You could murder, rape, steal, and cheat to your heart's content...but it would never be your "fault" because you have no free will, right? It wasn't "you", per se, that did anything...it was quantum mechanics.....?
|
On March 11 2012 10:19 skypig wrote:
I believe we all have God-given free will...and I snicker to think about how one might live WITHOUT free will. You would never be responsible for your actions - wouldn't that be great? You could murder, rape, steal, and cheat to your heart's content...but it would never be your "fault" because you have no free will, right? It wasn't "you", per se, that did anything...it was quantum mechanics.....?
this argument has come up multiple times and it seems to be rooted in a different definition of free will. lemme find my previous response to copypaste...
this guy's response gets it
On March 10 2012 09:25 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 09:14 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 09:09 Marth753 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:49 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 08:35 Marth753 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:23 seppolevne wrote:On March 10 2012 08:14 Marth753 wrote:On March 10 2012 06:53 L3gendary wrote:On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote:
The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level. This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false. First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past. Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime). Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow. But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped. If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified. Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed. Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it. Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves. you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either. the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other. How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe. As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses. No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically. Watch or read Minority Report if you have to LOL In response to the video you edited in: a probablistic quantum universe still doesn't necessarily contain free will. It could be probablistic, and if you did multiple instances of the big bang, it might turn out different every time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a free will component to how the creatures in the universe act. This doesn't really seem to matter; he seems to think assigning blame to people for doing deterministic things is a choice we have. If we happen to justify murder based on our realization of a deterministic universe, that choice was determined prior. If we choose to continue rehabilitation and such, that was also predetermined. "But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses." This scenario assumes free will, which in the beginning of your hypothetical doesn't exist. If the universe were deterministic then the future is already set. Our realization of and reaction to existing determinism is set in stone just like this conversation was. If the universe is deterministic then there are no choices we can make to improve\hurt society because by definition we do not have the free will to do so, we are moving along a set path. tl;dr Saying our acceptance of deterministic reality is bad and should be avoided assumes we have a choice in the matter (free will)
the existence or lack of existence of free will as defined by us SHOULD NOT inform any moral truths nor any action on a human scale
my morality comes from an ingrained (by my experiences) understanding of what to consider positive and negative. if i didn't have free will, i'd still have this understanding, and i'd still act on it mostly consistently. even if everyone didn't have free will, that doesn't stop them from punishing people who do bad things, because the deterministic universe says they should, they're part of societies that all have similar understandings of morality
another point i made earlier:
You seem to think law enforcement is about fairness, and what is right. That's wrong. Law enforcement is always about advancing the will of a group of people, and what they think should be done to people who choose to disrupt their society. Fairness/overarchingmorality isn't the basis (though some groups attempt to use morality as a basis, it still ultimately comes down to creating a list of crimes and punishments).
Guilt is defined by consequence (A killed B, minimum for manslaughter), and in a few cases, intent (A planned to kill B, minimum for murder 2), but intent is still an empirically observable aspect of a crime (often inferred, but still observable), whereas free will is nothing of the sort. Guilt, as defined by most powers that define it, is independent of the existence of free will
|
On March 11 2012 10:19 skypig wrote:
And by the way, it's incorrect to say that Quantum Mechanics is about "intrinsic randomness" - QM is largely about probability densities and distributions...in other words, if there is randomness in QM, we wouldn't know about it. We would only be able to slap a probability on a given event/occurrence, and leave it at that. Saying anything more than that is forbidden by QM in general, and by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, specifically.
I think your understanding of QM is kind of incomplete... we can collapse known probability wavefunctions over and over again and check that they conform to the distribution that we calculated them to be, so that's a confirmation of probabilistic determinism right there...
which state they collapse into is still "random" on a single-trial level, but the sum of the trials still conform to the distribution
i.e. in a hypothetical scenario where your decision to pick chocolate or vanilla ice cream depended on a superposition of probability waves (i know consciousness and brains dont work this way, shut up cogsci assholes), and we hypothetically knew the relevant functions, we'd know the probability of picking chocolate or vanilla, and the process by which one is chosen is still deterministic (has to be one of the two at some % chance, though obv we couldnt do multiple trials here). the fact that the choice was chocolate or vanilla was the environmental factor... now replace that decision with every decision made ever, even nonbinary ones, and you have no free will. your perception of debating the options is deterministic, just as the ultimate decision is
|
My personal definition of free will is the ability to make a choice. If the electrons in your brain influence you to lean more towards one alternative than another when choosing, and you are able to choose that alternative, i define that as free will.
Obviously there is not "true" free will in a sence that thoughts are actually eletric impulses that look different for each of us, the way these electric impulses behave changes depending on what we have experienced in life. But if this was the true definition for free will, we wouldn't care wether or not our will came true. Because if that is the case, whatever happens to you in life IS actually a result of your free will, since ultimately the way particles behave have made you end up here. There is no errors, in the giant formula that is life, it was always meant to happen since the math is never wrong.
|
Look, the wisdom behind the Lord's decisions is the following;
A calamity like drought or flooding is designed as a test of believers. They are designed to strengthen the belief in God by testing virtues like patience and justice.
How will you act in a bad time?
During good times, the Lord tests us by observing whether we are grateful for his bounties.
People shouldn't engage in "good God" "bad God" talk, because God knows what is best for us. Religion is not designed to keep the poor in poverty or the sick in sickness.
Religion is designed to allow you to demonstrate how kind, gentle, courteous, respectful, and thankful you are in all times of life, good or bad.
Free will does not exist, as the OP stated, we are only allowed to choose what we are allowed to choose... i.e. what crops to plant if we are farmers, who to marry, but we can't plan the destruction of uranus.
OR CAN WE
|
your god sounds like a pretty crazy dude. mine severs the wicked from the righteous, see my signature
|
On March 11 2012 09:59 Mente wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 09:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: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? Let me rephrase, there are many instances in cognitive sciences that can be translated into proving the existence (or lack there of) of free will. There whole goal isn't to disprove it. Sorry if I worded it funny; I wrote it in a hurry as I had a grill to watch. And, Bro, I'm calling one facet of quantum mechanics that. K, Bro? I could understand how some people think cognitive sciences can sometimes be translated into "proving" some form of lack of free will even though it's probably not one of the smartest parallels to make. But I don't understand how "there are many instances in cognitive sciences that can be translated into" proving the existence of free will.
|
Another thread bashing religion. There are people (philosophers, theologians, historians, theists, atheists) way smarter than 99 % of us here that have debated this for decades and still continue to do so without ends.
|
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:
Look, the wisdom behind the Lord's decisions is the following;
A calamity like drought or flooding is designed as a test of believers. They are designed to strengthen the belief in God by testing virtues like patience and justice.
How will you act in a bad time?
During good times, the Lord tests us by observing whether we are grateful for his bounties.
I strongly suggest you google "Confirmation bias".
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:
People shouldn't engage in "good God" "bad God" talk, because God knows what is best for us.
Really? Your god looks like a capricious, malevolent, genocidal lunatic to me.
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:
Religion is not designed to keep the poor in poverty or the sick in sickness.
Statements like this just make me really fucking mad. Not just because they're patently, provably false, but that you honestly seem to believe they're true while promoting the single most destructive force in the history of humanity.
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:Religion is designed to allow you to demonstrate how kind, gentle, courteous, respectful, and thankful you are in all times of life, good or bad.
Like how respectful the Vatican is of altar boys, or how the pope is thankful for $500M golden castle while innocent kids starve?
Is it courteous for street preachers to yell at me as I'm going about my business that I'm going to hell? Is it kind that religious people consistently persecute gays, atheists, those of other religions, and anyone else who happens to disagree with them?
Was it gentle of Mohammed to commit serial statutory rape, or to spread his 'peaceful' religion by fire and the sword?
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:Free will does not exist, as the OP stated, we are only allowed to choose what we are allowed to choose... i.e. what crops to plant if we are farmers, who to marry, but we can't plan the destruction of uranus.
OR CAN WE
I can't even express how much this mindset terrifies me, because it is a necessary condition in order to become President of the US that you must think the same way. Enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world are constantly in the hands of a delusional person who thinks that God will save us if he pushes that button.
|
On March 11 2012 10:19 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
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. I'm not sure who originally said the above statement (taken from OP) - if it was the OP, you're wrong. If it was Sam Harris, he's wrong. Free will is something that cannot be quantified or explained by the laws of science, any more than the concepts of right and wrong can be explained by science. Saying that "the laws of physics determine everything in the universe" is just a bunch of lame hand-waving that's not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. We can definitely explain some of the phenomena that we experience and observe with science, but certainly not everything (gravity, anyone?). Oftentimes people incorrectly refer to a bunch of untested, unprovable hypotheses as "science", when they really shouldn't... I think Harris's claims qualify as untested, unprovable hypotheses, sort of like his own made-up religion. And by the way, it's incorrect to say that Quantum Mechanics is about "intrinsic randomness" - QM is largely about probability densities and distributions...in other words, if there is randomness in QM, we wouldn't know about it. We would only be able to slap a probability on a given event/occurrence, and leave it at that. Saying anything more than that is forbidden by QM in general, and by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, specifically. I believe we all have God-given free will...and I snicker to think about how one might live WITHOUT free will. You would never be responsible for your actions - wouldn't that be great? You could murder, rape, steal, and cheat to your heart's content...but it would never be your "fault" because you have no free will, right? It wasn't "you", per se, that did anything...it was quantum mechanics.....?
I'll address your first point, as all your later points have already been addressed by posters above me.
It maybe true that our understanding of the laws of nature are slightly off or incomplete, but my argument would still stand. My argument is that actions and thoughts are the result of particle interactions governed by the laws of nature, so all that it requires is that particles follow *some* laws of nature, perhaps laws that we haven't discovered yet, it doesn't require that it follow the laws which we know.
The only way for my argument to be wrong is if thoughts and actions are not the results of particle interactions, that they are independent of the laws of nature and causation. But this is absurd, because thoughts and actions are caused by neural events in the brain which is a wholly physical system that is governed by the laws of nature. Your suggestion that free will violates the laws of nature is bold. If true it would falsify thousands of years of empirical evidence showing that nothing is above the laws of nature. Luckily, your claim is completely unproven, and there is no evidence at all to suggest it is true.
|
BUT THIS IS STILL THE LEAST RELEVANT TO SOCIETY QUESTION THERE IS, NO MATTER WHICH DEFINITION OF FREE WILL YOU USE (cuz if you use the physical reality one, it's pretty obviously leaning towards no, and if you use that weird one other people use, you lean towards yes and seem to think for some reason that no = moral nihilism and therefore we shouldn't punish people + that weird compatibilism one that isn't any better)
LIKE
THIS THREAD MAN
|
On March 11 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote:
It maybe true that our understanding of the laws of nature are slightly off or incomplete, but my argument would still stand. My argument is that actions and thoughts are the result of particle interactions governed by the laws of nature, so all that it requires is that particles follow *some* laws of nature, perhaps laws that we haven't discovered yet, it doesn't require that it follow the laws which we know.
Nice - so you fallaciously assume that "actions and thoughts are the results of particle interactions" that follow "laws of nature".... even if we haven't discovered them yet?
This is what I call turning science into a religion - you assume, quite stupidly, that everything in the universe MUST follow some "law of nature" and therefore MUST be 100% deterministic.
The phrase "law of nature" is a vague, empty, almost-useless term in discussions like these, because anyone can claim that any observable OR non-observable phenomena is "following some law of nature", even if we have no clue as to what that law is or how it might work.
I see people misquoting and misunderstanding quantum mechanics (and science, in general) so badly in this thread, it's scary...yes, we know a great deal about the universe and its physical phenomena. However, we would be narrow-minded and ignorant to believe that everything is deterministic, because we don't know everything about the universe, and probably never will.
This reminds me of the "Triumph of Classical Physics", back when it was popular belief that "everything had been explained" in the realm of physical science (with the exception of blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, etc.). How wrong they were...and how wrong we are to make stupid assumptions like they did.
|
Lets get a few things straight. There is no answer. There is none. So arguing about it, does nothing but split people apart. Now look at this. People are arguing against religion and now there are two groups(persay). Athiests and religion. And what do we get fighting? Religion is real and any one who claims it's not, insult them selves because it says they have never had a spirtiual moment. And my philospher in college gave me this quote which is just so beautiful!
Religious people know they are.
Athiests dont.
And if you think about it for a long time, not only is it clever but has many meanings even that of one siding with non religious people.
I respect every ons right to do what ever and I have no argumen for any one 
Peace to all how ever it comes about!
|
LOL! My brother from airizona just messegd me this!!
I asked him if he was religious he said
"Im a troll, I dont give a shit and have fun with the people who do!
One last note:
My philosphy Teacher was an Agnostic. And alot of athiest quit his class when he gave us that quote, not even realizing the quote insulted and had meaning for almost every religious and non religious group. And I'll never forget, he looked over to me and said "Athiests, so quick to dismiss". Now, yes it was off colored and yes , I had a lot of friends who told me to quit his class but thats what you get when you have a drunkard for a teacher.
|
|
|
On March 11 2012 13:45 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote:
It maybe true that our understanding of the laws of nature are slightly off or incomplete, but my argument would still stand. My argument is that actions and thoughts are the result of particle interactions governed by the laws of nature, so all that it requires is that particles follow *some* laws of nature, perhaps laws that we haven't discovered yet, it doesn't require that it follow the laws which we know. Nice - so you fallaciously assume that "actions and thoughts are the results of particle interactions" that follow "laws of nature".... even if we haven't discovered them yet? This is what I call turning science into a religion - you assume, quite stupidly, that everything in the universe MUST follow some "law of nature" and therefore MUST be 100% deterministic. The phrase "law of nature" is a vague, empty, almost-useless term in discussions like these, because anyone can claim that any observable OR non-observable phenomena is "following some law of nature", even if we have no clue as to what that law is or how it might work. I see people misquoting and misunderstanding quantum mechanics (and science, in general) so badly in this thread, it's scary...yes, we know a great deal about the universe and its physical phenomena. However, we would be narrow-minded and ignorant to believe that everything is deterministic, because we don't know everything about the universe, and probably never will. This reminds me of the "Triumph of Classical Physics", back when it was popular belief that "everything had been explained" in the realm of physical science (with the exception of blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, etc.). How wrong they were...and how wrong we are to make stupid assumptions like they did.
how acquainted are you with science? have you done the math of QM?
you seem so inflamed about the fact that we posit the definition of free will to be rooted in the natural cuz we think all our decisions and actions are rooted in the natural. we've already explained that not having free will wouldn't inform any idea of morality or any part of society, it's just a thing on its own. why are you so against this line of thinking?
|
Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
