EPTPlease, it is the 21st century, not the bronze age.
User was temp banned for this post.
Free Will and Religion - Page 46
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
Please, it is the 21st century, not the bronze age. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Superliquidity
United States1 Post
On March 23 2012 11:53 itkovian wrote: Ok, this is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. So I'll drop my two cents in here. Does free will exist? No. We make millions thousands of choices every day, but these choices are already pre-determined. We make decisions based on two things, genetics and past experiences. You can not control your genetics and you can not control you past decisions, therefore you can not control your decisions. When you make a choice your brain is recounting experiences that have happened in the past that relate to your current decision. Using the outcomes you've experienced in the past, and your general feeling towards each choice (again determined by outcomes and results from the past) you "make" your decision. You are not out of the blue making some kind of "arbitrary choice", the choice has already been made based on million and millions of stimuli you've experienced before that point. And each of those stimuli was predetermined as well, because if you trace it back the people in those positions before you, like your parents, would have encountered the same "choice" evaluations as you have before, which in turn were affected by previous stimuli beforehand. In my mind a choice comes down to this: Presented with option ----> remember similiar/applicable situations from the past ----> determine if they benefit you or not ------> choose most beneficial, or least harmful option Everything you do comes down to selfish desire. Some might try and argue, "well what about a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, how is that selfish?" A) Because the mother doesn't want to endure in the pain, regret, and agony of having lost her child. B) Motherly instinct, it is how our species has survived. So if everything comes down to making the choices that are best for ourselves, it simply becomes a matter of deciding which option is best for ourselves after evaluating past experiences. There is no choice. One option i simply better than the other. What about situations where there is no clear benefit? ie choose a number, 1 or 2? Your brain then picks one based on seemingly random or meaningless experience from the past. -Maybe the last number you saw was 2 so you choose that -Maybe your favorite number is 2 so you pick it -Maybe your favorite number is 2 but you have recently been unhappy with yourself, so you choose 1 -Maybe you are disinterested in the question and pick 1 because it was the first number you read -Maybe you pick 2 because it was the last number you read There is a reason for every choice, and those reasons are what take away those choice and free-will altogether. Since the reasons already exist behind each choice, we are making no choices on our own. I should say that the above post is practically spot on with my own conclusions on the subject. Schopenhauer once remarked something rather similar in spirit: "You may do as you please, but can you please as you please?". Indeed, choosing to wear red rather than blue seems, at least naively, to be an irrefutable demonstration of free choice. One simply does what one wants. But, does one choose to want what one wants? It's clear that given a set of desires one will act in such a way as to fulfill them, but it's far from clear that one has the liberty to explicitly choose those set of things which they desire. Example: You choose to eat pizza rather than cabbage. Explanation: You chose pizza because you wanted to; it tastes better. The caveat is to understand why you desired pizza rather than cabbage. Are you in control of choosing to enjoy pizza more than you enjoy cabbage? Can you suddenly choose to enjoy cabbage more...at will... or is this an intrinsic desire, over which you have little to no control? Note that even if one had some amount of control to change their set of desires, that would require some other desire to invoke this change (for example, to prove that you have free will). As a result, we make decisions based on a set of (possibly changing) desires, over which we ultimately have no control. Hence, there is indeed a reason for every choice, and such reasons are very interesting to examine. It tells you what kinds of things influence your set of desires, or why you enjoy certain things. We are not a wholly separated entities existing independently of the world around us, as if in some vacuum. Instead, we are intimately coupled to our environment, being both affected and affecting. Ironically, believing in free will immediately closes the door and ends the conversation short on this kind of deep examination of the self. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 29 2012 02:38 seppolevne wrote: It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force". What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will. | ||
|
G_G
Canada178 Posts
On March 23 2012 11:53 itkovian wrote:... Everything you do comes down to selfish desire. Some might try and argue, "well what about a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, how is that selfish?" A) Because the mother doesn't want to endure in the pain, regret, and agony of having lost her child. B) Motherly instinct, it is how our species has survived. So if everything comes down to making the choices that are best for ourselves, it simply becomes a matter of deciding which option is best for ourselves after evaluating past experiences. There is no choice. One option i simply better than the other. ... Isn't selfishness favoring one's own benefit over the benefits of others? Let's say that in some context there are two possible situations. Which situation come to be depends on one person's action. With one action, the person will benefit to lets say a degree of 10, and others will also benefit. With the other action, that person benefits to a degree of 50, but at the cost of all benefit to the others. There is a real blatant distinction between the two outcomes, and the word used to decribe the difference is selfishness. Just because there is personal incentive to do something does not mean that doing it is selfish. That would make the word redundant. Benefitng yourself emotionally by benefiting others is the opposite of selfish. "Everything you do comes down to selfish desire." should just be "Everything you do comes down to desire." | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On March 29 2012 05:39 Whitewing wrote: What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will. But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen? | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
On March 29 2012 02:56 Zanazuah wrote: What does free will have to do with Religion? Religion is BS and all of it's ''truthfulness'' was debunked decades ago, you must have been brainwashed from your childhood by your parents or you've very stupid/non-critical/so open minded that your brain is almost falling out from your skull. Please, it is the 21st century, not the bronze age. User was temp banned for this post. While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other If you want a group to troll, go tell atheists that you can't spell "atheist" without "a theist". They get really really angry and start throwing wikipedia articles about black holes or dark matter or w/e else at you. Personally I'd never take any group that is so fanatical/insulting to others/self righteous seriously. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 29 2012 08:23 seppolevne wrote: But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen? The actual mechanism is unknown, but physics suggests that it can't possibly be predetermined. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 29 2012 08:55 Whitewing wrote: The actual mechanism is unknown, but physics suggests that it can't possibly be predetermined. What are you talking about? What physics possibly suggests this can't be predetermined? If you're talking about quantum physics then that's not how it works. While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other As far as I can see, agnostics are just atheists that don't want to be associated with atheists (and they just see atheists as arrogant or 'just as arrogant as theists'). Just because there are atheists that are jerks doesn't mean all atheists are jerks. Atheism is just lack of belief in a deity or the supernatural. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 29 2012 09:03 DoubleReed wrote: What are you talking about? What physics possibly suggests this can't be predetermined? If you're talking about quantum physics then that's not how it works. As far as I can see, agnostics are just atheists that don't want to be associated with atheists (and they just see atheists as arrogant or 'just as arrogant as theists'). Just because there are atheists that are jerks doesn't mean all atheists are jerks. Atheism is just lack of belief in a deity or the supernatural. Go ahead and tell Michio Kaku that's not how the physics works. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 29 2012 09:13 Whitewing wrote: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM Go ahead and tell Michio Kaku that's not how the physics works. Okay. That's not how it works.  Probablistic uncertainties is not nearly the same thing as indeterministic, anyway. You can't just say "Oh there's uncertainty, so anything goes!" No, absolutely not. What a ridiculous idea. Even if it's "50% here, 50% there," that is no where remotely close to indeterministic. Especially not once you jump to the cellular level. The idea that things are actually fundamentally uncertain is an outdated belief of quantum mechanics. We have a much better idea of what happens on the quantum level now. The appearance of probabilistic behavior just means that there is the appearance of probabilistic behavior. Here's a pretty good explanation of it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/ | ||
|
Phant
United States737 Posts
I have the illusion of free will even if it doesn't exist, and I am happy =) | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better? What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality. It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ. And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity. All of this becomes condensed into... Yeah, man has free will, fuck you . | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 29 2012 09:38 Half wrote: ...what the hell is going on here?... Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better? What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality. It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ. And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity. All of this becomes condensed into... Yeah, man has free will, fuck you  . What? Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely. I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here? So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On March 29 2012 09:58 DoubleReed wrote: What? Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely. I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here? So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly? I don't toss out Atheism, I toss out a lot of current trends in Atheism which I kinda despise. Namely, the gnostic part. I'm saying I dislike the entire pretext of this discussion. It wholly reminds of debates about predestination or something in another phase of western thought. The arguments shouldn't be focusing on scientific explanations that we live in a deterministic universe. First of all, its an unknown. Sure, we can argue until we're blue in the face on the current positions of our scientific establishment, but the fact of the matter is, we're not part of it, and even if we are, we don't speak for it, and its authority on such a cutting edge feild basically last as long until the next big name dicovery from CERN or something. Its rediculous to play along with an argument that at its heart, rests a fundementally flawed and undefined premise. What is free will? At the heart, I'm saying this entire course of conversation is inherently deceitful, and I don't understand why people play along. It really has nothing to do with science, and people have been debating such a topic forever. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 29 2012 10:08 Half wrote: I don't toss out Atheism, I toss out a lot of current trends in Atheism which I kinda despise. Namely, the gnostic part. I'm saying I dislike the entire pretext of this discussion. It wholly reminds of debates about predestination or something in another phase of western thought. The arguments shouldn't be focusing on scientific explanations that we live in a deterministic universe. First of all, its an unknown. Sure, we can argue until we're blue in the face on the current positions of our scientific establishment, but the fact of the matter is, we're not part of it, and even if we are, we don't speak for it, and its authority on such a cutting edge feild basically last as long until the next big name dicovery from CERN or something. At the heart, I'm saying this entire course of conversation is inherently deceitful, and I don't understand why people play along. It really has nothing to do with science, and people have been debating such a topic forever. Sigh. Just because something is uncertain does not mean you can't make claims about it. Absolute certainty is incredibly difficult, if even possible. We know a lot more about how the world works. You can still talk about what is likely and unlikely, what is probable or improbable, given the information we do have. Atheism is the same thing. Just because we don't have complete information does not mean we can't make claims about it. We can talk about what is likely and unlikely based on the information we have. We do have a lot of information. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On March 29 2012 10:15 DoubleReed wrote: Sigh. Just because something is uncertain does not mean you can't make claims about it. Absolute certainty is incredibly difficult, if even possible. We know a lot more about how the world works. You can still talk about what is likely and unlikely, what is probable or improbable, given the information we do have. I'm starting to think you aren't understanding the point of any of my posts. Maybe this is my bad, I don't know. I am saying that the conversation is bad because you're attempting to refute an absurd premise in a information based fashion. This is horribly innefficient, and also makes me think that a lot of people don't recognize the absurditiy, but simply have issues with it on a clerical level (the lack of evidence part). I do not find issues with the "gnostic" interpretation free will because it does not exists. I do not find issues with it because we may, or may not, be living in a deterministic universe. Who can say? I find issues with it because the entire concept is absurd as tasting the color purple, it is not a logically cogent or consist thing that can be described, yet such a criticism of it hasn't even been made in this thread. This does not mean I am against it, I am against its existence as an idealogical phenomenon. I would like to see a world where we can see "free will" discussed as a matter of psychology and society, not as idealogy. Gnostic atheism is what I refer to as Atheism that retains a lot of "magical" mental concepts that are fundementally spiritual beliefs, usually of gnostic origin. Quite a lot of them in this thread, every atheist here that defend free will, and probably half of them that are gainst it. Yes, it is contradictory, thats why I don't like it lol. I'm out. See sig. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 29 2012 10:23 Half wrote: I'm starting to think you aren't understanding the point of any of my posts. Maybe this is my bad, I don't know. I am saying that the conversation is bad because you're attempting to refute an absurd premise in a information based fashion. This is horribly innefficient, and also makes me think that a lot of people don't recognize the absurditiy, but simply have issues with it on a clerical level (the lack of evidence part). I do not find issues with the "gnostic" interpretation free will because it does not exists. I do not find issues with it because we may, or may not, living in a deterministic universe. Who can say? I find issues with it because the entire concept is absurd as tasting the color purple, it is not a logically cogent or consist thing that can be described, yet such a criticism of it hasn't even been made in this thread. This does not mean I am against it, I am against its existence as an idealogical phenomenon. I would like to see a world where we can see "free will" discussed as a matter of psychology and society, not as idealogy. Gnostic atheism is what I refer to as Atheism that retains a lot of "magical" mental concepts that are fundementally spiritual beliefs, usually of gnostic origin. Quite a lot of them in this thread, every atheist here that defend free will, and probably half of them that are gainst it. Yes, it is contradictory, thats why I don't like it lol. I'm out. See sig. Oh. Okay, after reading that a few times I think I understand. I guess we agree then? I think? Whatever, I'm gonna say we agree. Hooray! | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
| ||
|
AUFKLARUNG
Germany245 Posts
In a way, Hegel's history still applies here: all these process of uncertainty and discovery is emrely an unfolding of the primordial absolute mind. It so happens we are in an era of science and science has no choice but to define all materiality, even those that are normally assigned to metaphysics, as concerns of its province, this time, namely, free will. I understand and do not object to physicists and general positicist scientists to proceed with this undertaking. What I would like to propose however is even if such knowledge is novel, it is not final, not even definitive. If science decides to pursue the question of free will in the manner that it does now, it will be reduced to nothing more than theology, in the same manner that theoretical physicist now are approaching the question of time and quantum physics. Free will, for now, remains strongly in the domain of the humanities and social sciences. | ||
| ||
