|
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 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote:On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: Show nested quote +
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"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will.
I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above.
See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice.
I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being.
Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice?
See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.."
My previous full argument:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 12 2012 14:54 Don.681 wrote:I would like to continue a thought process i have submitted into this thread previously. + Show Spoiler +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"? Now, I would like to tackle complexity. The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own. So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will. Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference. Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself. Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another. Lets start with 1 cell. Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will. AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will. Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will. However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1. Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between. AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that. FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act. AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
|
On March 12 2012 18:46 Don.681 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote: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"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will. I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above. See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice. I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being. Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice? See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.." My previous full argument: + Show Spoiler +On March 12 2012 14:54 Don.681 wrote:I would like to continue a thought process i have submitted into this thread previously. + Show Spoiler +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"? Now, I would like to tackle complexity. The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own. So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will. Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference. Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself. Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another. Lets start with 1 cell. Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will. AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will. Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will. However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1. Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between. AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that. FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act. AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
I did read the rest of your argument, I just wanted to respond to that part because you said it was what convinced you that there is no free will, all I really wanted to say was that it did not convince me that there is no free will. (Keep in mind that I am still undecided in whether I believe in free will or not, I am still try to find an answer that satisfies me one way or another, but my own experience of my perception currently has me leaning towards free will existing)
I am still considering your more recent argument, but I haven't come to any conclusion yet.
|
On March 12 2012 17:52 cydial wrote:
Your environment dictates a fucking huge amount of what type of person you will become in life. Then there's also genetic RNG as to what type of brain you are going to have.
Free will does exist to an extent, but your environment definetly restricts it severely.
That is our perception. The question is, if this perception reflects the truth. If I think more about the process which results in a decision, I come to the conclusion that the decision isn't generated by free will.
|
On March 12 2012 18:46 Don.681 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote: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"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will. I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above. See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice. I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being. Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice? See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.." My previous full argument: + Show Spoiler +On March 12 2012 14:54 Don.681 wrote:I would like to continue a thought process i have submitted into this thread previously. + Show Spoiler +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"? Now, I would like to tackle complexity. The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own. So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will. Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference. Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself. Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another. Lets start with 1 cell. Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will. AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will. Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will. However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1. Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between. AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that. FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act. AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
To me your question seems akin to asking at what point a table really becomes a table if you keep adding atoms to a collection of atoms which are not yet a table. What is that magic last step that is required to make non-table material into a table and why exactly was the collection not yet a table before adding this essential atom?
This is just pointless dialectics. The point is that there just never is such a sharp divide. Among living beings there are various degrees of freedom, in the sense of relevant "can do"s, with respect to decision making and will, with "normal" humans certainly being at the extreme end of the known spectrum.
|
On March 12 2012 20:01 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2012 18:46 Don.681 wrote:On March 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote: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"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will. I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above. See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice. I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being. Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice? See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.." My previous full argument: + Show Spoiler +On March 12 2012 14:54 Don.681 wrote:I would like to continue a thought process i have submitted into this thread previously. + Show Spoiler +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"? Now, I would like to tackle complexity. The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own. So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will. Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference. Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself. Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another. Lets start with 1 cell. Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will. AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will. Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will. However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1. Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between. AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that. FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act. AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well? To me your question seems akin to asking at what point a table really becomes a table if you keep adding atoms to a collection of atoms which are not yet a table. What is that magic last step that is required to make non-table material into a table and why exactly was the collection not yet a table before adding this essential atom? This is just pointless dialectics. The point is that there just never is such a sharp divide. Among living beings there are various degrees of freedom, in the sense of relevant "can do"s, with respect to decision making and will, with "normal" humans certainly being at the extreme end of the known spectrum.
But free will is a sharp divide. It has to be a sharp divide. You are separating a system/being from everything else and saying that somehow, it acts free/alone/un-influenced by anything else. There is a spark/event somewhere that ignores all other previous events so that it may cause another set of events on it's own. The argument against free will is essentially saying that nothing does that. There is no sharp divide.
===All events that are happening===
+ Show Spoiler +=========sharp divide========
===Events caused by free will/a being with free will.===
What are the implications of not having this "sharp divide" and at the same time, there exists free will?
Lets say in the universe, there is a mechanism capable of free will. Since it is in the universe, everything else in the universe can interact with it. Therefore, each and every event this mechanism causes is the result of this free will mechanism. In turn, it influences every event in the universe. Therefore, this entitiy being part of the universe ---causes the universe itself to have free will.
If humans had free will, then, since humans are not really separate from the universe/reality --the planet has free will, the milky way has free will the universe has free will. The final outcome/state of the universe/timespace is determined solely by the actions of a species born in our part of the universe because it is free to act on its own regardless of the influence of everything else. The universe did not have this before we existed, it suddenly had it when the first human got free will, and it will be lost when the last human dies.
"There is no free will" is us being influenced by everything else/timespace/the universe.
"There is free will" is us influencing everything else/timespace/the universe and being the sole drivers of events on it because we are free from all other events but at the same time we can cause other events on our own.
We need to stop looking at things as pockets of individual phenomena. There are no "pockets". We need to start considering how it looks like when looking at everything as one whole.
|
This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
That said, as a naturalist I cannot believe that we actually have this kind of free will. As has already been pointed out, we are composed of particles each of which obeys the laws of physics. Therefore, we obey the laws of physics as well.
The only way around this argument is to hold that the fundamental nature of the world differs radically from how we perceive it and to claim that something corresponding to our vague notion of libertarian free will exists at the fundamental level. In short, you have to get pretty skeptical/Kantian to believe in it. I'm not nearly skeptical enough to go down that line.
(2) Does 'Free Will' Express a Libertarian or a Compatibilist Concept?
This is of course a paradigm example of a verbal dispute (certainly by Chalmers' lights). That doesn't mean that one side isn't right however. If you're having a debate with someone that thinks that kicks are a type of punch, then you are having a verbal dispute, but you are still clearly correct about the actual meaning.
'Free will' is a lot more complicated than this, and frankly the state of the art understanding of metasemantics in semantics and philosophy of language is nowhere near advanced enough to decide the issue. Nobody has anything approximating a precise account of metasemantic principles. The best we have are vague generalizations to the effect that a symbol's meaning is determined by some combination of its use (where this includes dispositions and intentions to use), facts about what causes actual tokenings of the symbol, and perhaps naturalness of interpretation.
It really does not get very much clearer than that. In short, at this stage we have next to no ability to decide who is right about meaning in borderline cases such as with 'free will'. There's plenty of metasemantic pressure in favor and against both interpretations, and the X-Phi on this issue is all over the place (though slightly in favor of libertarianism). Charity and naturalness favor the compatibilist interpretation, but perhaps only slightly. Evidence is further diminished by the fact that very few linguistic contexts have features that actually distinguish between the two conceptions (since the laws of nature are rarely discussed in typical linguistic contexts).
To conclude, our understanding of metasemantics is nowhere near the level it would need to be to decide which side is right in the verbal dispute. If you think you know, you are wrong.
(3) Does Morality/Moral Responsibility Presuppose Libertarian Free Will?
This is probably the most important question. Many are inclined to say 'yes', and I feel that pressure as well. Before doing so however, I think it's important to ask yourself exactly how a libertarian free will could make moral responsibility possible in the first place. What conception of morality do you have that makes it clear that it can exist with and only with the existence of libertarian free will?
I don't have a good answer to this questions. The more I think about it, the more I think that it mirrors Plato's Euthyphro. Sure, it seems like morality cannot exist without the gods, but once you start to wonder how the gods are supposed to help matters, things get a lot more confused.
That said, something in me refuses to believe that objective blame and merit is possible in a world without libertarian free will (maybe they're impossible regardless). By which I mean, it cannot be the case that the world would be a better place in virtue of the suffering of the wicked, ignoring what further effects their punishment has. In a law governed universe, this reeks of unfairness.
I am inclined to keep the rest of morality though. Still negotiating whether or not that is possible.
|
I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
That I posted it earlier but I'm reposting it.
...
Honestly people like to jump into a bandwagon and it seems to me that one of the new cool things to say it's claiming that free will doesn't exist. Of course we are influenced by our environments profoundly some more than others... but, it reminds me a little bit of people supporting communism in my country (Venezuela, where communism is still cool) it doesn't matter how many examples you give them or how much logic do you use because they have the books to prove you are wrong no matter what.
I say this because in one of the videos posted in this thread showed as proof that there is no free will a scientist gives an example about a young guy that worked on railroads who had an accident losing part of his brain, after that he says that people used to say the guy wasn't the same anymore, that he just wasted his money on gambling and prostitutes... but put yourself in that guy's place. You are young, muscular, probably good looking and you lose part of your brain and face, people will look at you like you were some kind of monster it is like it is. I know this because it happened to me, I had an accident and a few surgeries where I ended up wearing external metal nails in a broken arm, my friends had a hard hard time looking at it... (I promised that if surgery went wrong I would commit suicide, I was lucky but it was pretty close, nothing wrong with my brain though), people on the street even took pictures or all looked at me and said things like "Oh gross!", now imagine losing part of your face... it is the end of the world for you, why not use all your hard earned money on prostitutes (trust me you won't get in a healthy relationship with only half your face, unless it's a daughter of Gandhi with infinite love, and even she likes normal guys), and gambling, things you wouldn't do otherwise but it doesn't matter to you anymore, because you will start thinking you are DONE.
I could see that being (part of) the truth. Sure removals of part of the brain can influence people's behavior, but to claim that especifically removing a part will make you 'waste' money on prostitutes and gambling it's stretching your argument too much.
In that same video, the scientist talks about a guy who had a brain tumor and suddenly started to like watching naked kids... his wife said he knew him all his life and that he wasn't like that 'before'. He had a surgery and the tumor removed, suddenly the desire to watch naked kids went away... but then the tumor grew again and the desire came back. A tumor is not a part of the brain, the part of the brain that was removed didn't grew back, the whole thing seems like a silly excuse to me, how the hell does your wife find out you like watching naked kids, maybe she got him watching child pornography or something then blamed everything on the tumor, started crying saying it wasn't his fault and after surgery... with a straigh face says (hey I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve) the desire in him is no more... good excuse for both of them to sleep at night.
My conclusion of this wall of text is: Removing a part of the brain sure can change a person, but to claim that a specific conduct is born because of it, it's stretching reality to fit your argument.
|
Oh I cannot even read this thread anymore. It's such a brainstorm of quantum mechanics, determinism, perfect prediction machines if feed all possible data in the universe could predict it but then it can't because of quantum mechanics are random, etc, you need a dozen phDs to even understand the surface of this discussion because it's so complex complex semantic complex complex really reminds me of the arguments of people supporting communism, it's so complex an argument that you cannot win because only them know all that complexity. : P
As an atheist for a long long time isn't religion the same thing, throwing incredibly complex arguments to prove your point, then end up proving it with semantics?, when reality is really so simple... only open your eyes.
This is not relevant but it's funny to me I guess, I became an atheist (without even understanding what it was) at 8 years old, because I lived in a farm in the middle of nowhere and I wanted to feed the chickens, so my dad bough me my own chicken as a present... I loved it, one day it just died and I was pretty sad. I asked my dad if chickens went to heaven, so one day when I die I could see my chicken again and be happy forever, and he said... "well chickens don't go to heaven son, heaven is only for people", Oh that poor poor chicken, I said "Dad but when the chicken dies what happends?", he said, "well it just dies and that's it." Right there I though what's different between a chicken just dying and me just dying, it would take about 11 years to finally be an atheist but it always went back to that, I sort of always knew. 
|
It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused.
And therefore either determined or arbitrary.
Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical.
But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2]
According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
|
I'm not a theoretical physicist or a religious person, and just like everyone else in the world all I can do is give my opinion on something so here goes.
Although true that everything is just atoms and energy (no mention of this in the OP as far as I could tell) and that the atom movement itself has no free will component (we think so at least), I've come to believe that the joining of simple components can make complex structures capable of doing stuff much more complex then the simple components could. For example, Gravity. We do not understand it, we know it is one of the ruling forces of our universe and yet microscopically its non-existant, it is too weak to do anything and yet it makes the entire universe move.
Gravity does not exist at the atom level, yet once they join it suddenly appears.
According to the OP all humans should be able to do is randomly collide with one another since that is what atoms do, however any factory in the world will produce roughly the same stuff over and over again with no grand randomness to it. A shoe factory will make shoes, sure sometimes there is a botched one, but there will never come out a fridge or a live cow. Not much randomness for an inherently "random" process now is it?
What does all this rant means?
Well as I stated above, complex formation of simple blocks gain properties that can make it different from everything else. And by this I mean that even though atoms themselves do not have free will, some of the structures they make when joined could potentially develop such a propertie. Hopefully we humans are one such structure.
|
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be. An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither. There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization. Show nested quote +In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Show nested quote +According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
That doesn't really hold. Determined and arbitrary aren't necessarily the only options. That could be a false dilemma. There could be a third "chosen" or simply "neither."
Free will is obviously poorly defined, but I don't consider this a good argument.
|
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:
It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused.
And therefore either determined or arbitrary.
Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical.
But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
That seems to me like: It's really not that complex. (Or like my christian friends would say)
The universe exist.
That means there has to be something that created it.
God must have created it because things don't come out of nothing.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so god is all there is.
But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called atheism.
My whole point is: We do not know enough of this yet. We do know that society does work like free will exists, people think that their actions are theirs, even when the environment can influence profoundly. So there is a basis for something like free will to exist. That is a part of the truth, calling it a massive dellusion could be a dellusion in itself, because then you believe in the dellusion that the dellusion of free will exists, but unlike other dellusions (religions) free will seems like too much of an important component in human history, the decisition to move my leg, or paint the Mona Lisa, that is hard for me to believe it could be predicted. Maybe in this day and age biology doesn't know enough about our brains to know if free will exists. Read the posts above, it's a good argument/analogy about gravity... but just because we don't know much about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that's just ridicolous.
|
On March 13 2012 02:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote:It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be. An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither. There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization. In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations." That doesn't really hold. Determined and arbitrary aren't necessarily the only options. That could be a false dilemma. There could be a third "chosen" or simply "neither." Free will is obviously poorly defined, but I don't consider this a good argument.
Poorly defined?
An event which is neither caused nor uncaused is IMPOSSIBLE to define. It goes outside the bounds of language or sense or logic.
On March 13 2012 03:02 Nevermind86 wrote:
God must have created it because things don't come out of nothing.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so god is all there is.
1) Actually, things do come out of nothing. It is an observable phenomenon.
2) There is no reason to assume that the process which creates matter has to be a conscious being.
|
|
|
Heh I realize Liberal that you just pick parts of other people posts that fit whatever your argument is, taking it out of context. You could be a great political journalist. =/
|
On March 13 2012 03:11 Barrin wrote:
Sooo... other than maybe disproving (yet another) part of religion (which won't phase most religious people even a little)... what do we really gain by making this distinction?
Determinism is a little depressing, nothing really gained there. It makes a lot of sense, but it is rather incomplete (as is all other views). Can't prove or disprove it (yet). Pretty sure the amount of effort put into this discussion is disproportional to the benefit that will come out of it.
We can eliminate the irrational judgments we make towards the behavior of others, or judgments of people themselves. That's a pretty big deal.
On March 13 2012 03:11 Nevermind86 wrote:
Heh I realize Liberal that you just pick parts of other people posts that fit whatever your argument is, taking it out of context. You could be a great political journalist. =/
No, what I did was find the critical flaw in your deductive reasoning, and explain why it is an incorrect premise.
|
|
|
On March 13 2012 03:13 liberal wrote:
No, what I did was find the critical flaw in your deductive reasoning, and explain why it is an incorrect premise.
You're good man. You 'almost' convince me of your political views.
|
On March 13 2012 03:20 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 03:13 liberal wrote:On March 13 2012 03:11 Barrin wrote:
Sooo... other than maybe disproving (yet another) part of religion (which won't phase most religious people even a little)... what do we really gain by making this distinction?
Determinism is a little depressing, nothing really gained there. It makes a lot of sense, but it is rather incomplete (as is all other views). Can't prove or disprove it (yet). Pretty sure the amount of effort put into this discussion is disproportional to the benefit that will come out of it. We can eliminate the irrational judgments we make towards the behavior of others, or judgments of people themselves. That's a pretty big deal. what the fuck? lol So basically we wouldn't have to hold people accountable for their actions? Surely you didn't mean that. Unless you mean they should receive consequences for their actions regardless. Honestly... I do this anyway without determinism just fine. It comes through a combination of wisdom/experience and empathy. Though I do realize that very few people do. But still, maybe this isn't the only or best path to that end.
I think people often confuse the notions of judgement and accountability. I can hold someone accountable for something, knowing that they did not really have a choice in the matter. This is because an awareness of accountability will influence behavior, and because punishment serves as negative reinforcement to diminish such behavior in the future. Or, if it's proved that rehabilitation alone has better long term social consequences, we could favor that entirely. And all this can be done without looking down on the person, calling them "evil" or "immoral" or a "monster," etc. Such judgments are eliminated with understanding, not only with empathy, but with an awareness that "free will" as a concept is nonsensical.
I would argue there are better ways of diminishing undesired behavior than to always harm a person. The people who most often favor harm and punishment under all circumstances are doing so under the false belief that the person "deserves" retribution. It's an evolved emotion which was and often still is helpful towards survival, but it also often irrational and misguided.
It is emotions such as that one which make it so difficult for people to accept the common sense fact that all behavior has causes.
|
On March 13 2012 02:46 JCare wrote:
I'm not a theoretical physicist or a religious person, and just like everyone else in the world all I can do is give my opinion on something so here goes.
Although true that everything is just atoms and energy (no mention of this in the OP as far as I could tell) and that the atom movement itself has no free will component (we think so at least), I've come to believe that the joining of simple components can make complex structures capable of doing stuff much more complex then the simple components could. For example, Gravity. We do not understand it, we know it is one of the ruling forces of our universe and yet microscopically its non-existant, it is too weak to do anything and yet it makes the entire universe move.
Gravity does not exist at the atom level, yet once they join it suddenly appears.
According to the OP all humans should be able to do is randomly collide with one another since that is what atoms do, however any factory in the world will produce roughly the same stuff over and over again with no grand randomness to it. A shoe factory will make shoes, sure sometimes there is a botched one, but there will never come out a fridge or a live cow. Not much randomness for an inherently "random" process now is it?
What does all this rant means?
Well as I stated above, complex formation of simple blocks gain properties that can make it different from everything else. And by this I mean that even though atoms themselves do not have free will, some of the structures they make when joined could potentially develop such a propertie. Hopefully we humans are one such structure.
Where did you get the idea that gravity doesn't exist on the atomic level? It is the weakest of the forces but it is proportionate to the number of atoms, or specifically the electrons, protons, and neutrons. So you add them all up and get the total mass. Also while it's the weakest it has the longest "range" so on the scale of the universe it has the largest effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
