|
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 May 30 2012 15:00 beamer159 wrote:
I'm having a problem understanding soemthing regarding this topic, and I was hoping someone could shed some light for me. First, I'll explain how I think about the concept of free will:
I believe that free will is an illusion, like many other people here. I believe that choices are determined based on chemical reactions and neural signals in the brain. These reactions and messages create our decisions, not the other way around. Therefore, every choice I make is predetermined. I also believe that the universe is predictable. That is, with enough computing power, one could calculate where an asteroid will be in 1 century, how deep the Atlantic Ocean will be in a millenium, or how many leaves my tree outside will have next year. In fact, the only randomness at all in the universe, in my opinion, is the precise location of electrons around atoms. Apparently, this can only be probabilistically estimated. However, I'm thinking that this miniscule amount of uncertainty won't affect anything larger-scale.
By putting these two ideas together, I believe that, since the big bang, there was only one possible way the universe could play out, and this play-out could be calculated given perfect information and infinite computing power. Now here's where my problem comes in. Lets say, hypothetically, that such a machine existed that had infinite computing power, perfect information about the universe, and all knowedge of physics. A user could essentially use this machine to tell the future. What if this user used the machine to foresee what he will be doing in 5 minutes, then decides not to do whatever the machine foresaw in 5 minutes. This seems like a paradox to me. The only solution, in my eyes, is that either the machine will output "I don't know" to the user's query, or such a machine can only exist outside our universe. What do you think?
If we use your premise then the event where the user forsaw what he will be doing in 5 minutes was predetermined. The mental processes that came after that (such as wanting to decide to not to do it) were also predetermined. It's only a paradox if there is freewill, however... for a machine like that to exist then there must not be any freewill, and what it predicted would happen in 5 minutes will happen regardless.
This is just philosophy based on the premise that everything is predetermined, my argument is not based on reality.
|
In my opinion and based on scientific evidence (see the video posted earlier in this thread about the uncertainty of electrons) I do believe that we have free will. Like the scientist said in the video, there's always the wild card and random factor. If this wild card of electrons being random took place (which it did) since the beginning of man kind than it could have completely altered any predetermined path that people may have had and "unlocked" free will for everyone a long, long time ago.
I know this is off topic but I'd have to agree with the poster a few pages ago that said that he dislikes atheists elitists even more so than religious extremists. It's extremely annoying hearing someone bash someone because they think that they're smarter than them just because they don't believe in a God and the other person does.
Personally, I take the agnostic route and just say I don't know (even though that's what agnostic atheism is but I do believe that nature itself is God and there is a probability of a God that could be outside of the universe).
|
On May 31 2012 09:25 Sovern wrote:
In my opinion and based on scientific evidence (see the video posted earlier in this thread about the uncertainty of electrons) I do believe that we have free will. Like the scientist said in the video, there's always the wild card and random factor. If this wild card of electrons being random took place (which it did) since the beginning of man kind than it could have completely altered any predetermined path that people may have had and "unlocked" free will for everyone a long, long time ago.
I know this is off topic but I'd have to agree with the poster a few pages ago that said that he dislikes atheists elitists even more so than religious extremists. It's extremely annoying hearing someone bash someone because they think that they're smarter than them just because they don't believe in a God and the other person does.
Personally, I take the agnostic route and just say I don't know (even though that's what agnostic atheism is but I do believe that nature itself is God and there is a probability of a God that could be outside of the universe).
But the factor randomness of does not mean that we have any control of it. Even if nothing was predetermined, we would still all be slaves to the environment which we are forced into. I honestly cannot see any scientifically defensible position for free will.
|
On May 31 2012 06:11 TheKK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 15:00 beamer159 wrote:
I'm having a problem understanding soemthing regarding this topic, and I was hoping someone could shed some light for me. First, I'll explain how I think about the concept of free will:
I believe that free will is an illusion, like many other people here. I believe that choices are determined based on chemical reactions and neural signals in the brain. These reactions and messages create our decisions, not the other way around. Therefore, every choice I make is predetermined. I also believe that the universe is predictable. That is, with enough computing power, one could calculate where an asteroid will be in 1 century, how deep the Atlantic Ocean will be in a millenium, or how many leaves my tree outside will have next year. In fact, the only randomness at all in the universe, in my opinion, is the precise location of electrons around atoms. Apparently, this can only be probabilistically estimated. However, I'm thinking that this miniscule amount of uncertainty won't affect anything larger-scale.
By putting these two ideas together, I believe that, since the big bang, there was only one possible way the universe could play out, and this play-out could be calculated given perfect information and infinite computing power. Now here's where my problem comes in. Lets say, hypothetically, that such a machine existed that had infinite computing power, perfect information about the universe, and all knowedge of physics. A user could essentially use this machine to tell the future. What if this user used the machine to foresee what he will be doing in 5 minutes, then decides not to do whatever the machine foresaw in 5 minutes. This seems like a paradox to me. The only solution, in my eyes, is that either the machine will output "I don't know" to the user's query, or such a machine can only exist outside our universe. What do you think? If we use your premise then the event where the user forsaw what he will be doing in 5 minutes was predetermined. The mental processes that came after that (such as wanting to decide to not to do it) were also predetermined. It's only a paradox if there is freewill, however... for a machine like that to exist then there must not be any freewill, and what it predicted would happen in 5 minutes will happen regardless. This is just philosophy based on the premise that everything is predetermined, my argument is not based on reality.
This has been gone over several times in the thread, both in its first run and now that it's come back, but the problems for the machine really have nothing to do with libertarian free will and they continue to exist even in a deterministic universe. A computer whose sole design feature is to do the opposite of whatever the predictor says poses just as much a problem for the machine as a free agent.
|
The Machine problem is easily solved. You see, for the machine to calculate what will happen in the universe it must have complexity equal to that of the universe. But if a user from inside our universe can access the machine, that means that the computation needs to expand to include the machine itself as part of its predictions, thereby making the machine bigger, thereby making the computation more complex, thereby making the machine bigger... Etc.
And that's why it's impossible for a system to precisely predict its own future state.
|
On May 31 2012 09:25 Sovern wrote:
In my opinion and based on scientific evidence (see the video posted earlier in this thread about the uncertainty of electrons) I do believe that we have free will. Like the scientist said in the video, there's always the wild card and random factor. If this wild card of electrons being random took place (which it did) since the beginning of man kind than it could have completely altered any predetermined path that people may have had and "unlocked" free will for everyone a long, long time ago.
I know this is off topic but I'd have to agree with the poster a few pages ago that said that he dislikes atheists elitists even more so than religious extremists. It's extremely annoying hearing someone bash someone because they think that they're smarter than them just because they don't believe in a God and the other person does.
Personally, I take the agnostic route and just say I don't know (even though that's what agnostic atheism is but I do believe that nature itself is God and there is a probability of a God that could be outside of the universe).
"Based on scientific evidence" we do not have free will. There is no physical mechanism for it currently explainable.
You are smarter than someone for concluding that based on current evidence God does not exist, rather than does. And I wouldn't consider 'hope' the most intelligent of emotions (or whatever it is).
Be 'agnostic' about God the way you are 'agnostic' about Zeus. I mean, sure someone could be throwing all those thunderbolts, but really...
|
Based on what scientific evidence lol. We're not even close to uncovering the mechanism of how conciousness comes about. When you dont understand a system fully, you make a functional model. For all intents and purposes we do have free will.
|
On May 31 2012 23:05 gameguard wrote:
Based on what scientific evidence lol. We're not even close to uncovering the mechanism of how conciousness comes about. When you dont understand a system fully, you make a functional model. For all intents and purposes we do have free will.
We don't even have to get to "consciousness". Try physics.
|
Does a bacteria has conciousness? It acts through his instincts which means the code in it's DNA, incentive experience and awareness of the enviroment. Does this mean it is aware of itself being alive which means it has self conciousness?
If that bacteria acting through it's instincts and code in it's DNA doesn't count for conciousness because it's too primitive in which point in evolution does self awareness truly begin? Also would that mean not every living being has conciousness?
If it counts to has conciousness would it have a free will too? It only acts through it's code in DNA and mutates or goes into mutual relationships within it's rules so does it really "choose" anything? I think not.
Then the real question narrows to this:
Does conciousness means it is acting the way that it is not commanded or ruled by chemical reactions and biological reactions by your true self, is it really possible? Because as far as i can see pshycologcists do agree that every human behaviour can be explained by some prime mover, even if it's a chemical reaction in your brain, old experiences leading to the action, expectation of something one way or the other, they think that even if you can't really reach to it, there is a reason behind things...
So no, i don't think we have free will. I think everything that happens and will happen is the nature working itself out. And it will do it within a reasoning of chain effects through it's acts even if we catch the grasp of it or not.
And it's not relevant but when i'm thinking about this kind of stuff i sometimes remember Gregory House saying "Humanity is overrated" and i just think that i can't agree more.
|
Thinking that we don't have free will is just depressing. That means that everything that will and has happened was/is predetermined and that living is basically meaningless as you cant change anything, even yourself. I choose to believe in free will even if the evidence points to the contrary just for my own sane well being. That scientific video that was posted earlier does prove that free will does exist though as electrons movements are random.
|
On June 01 2012 03:16 Sovern wrote:
Thinking that we don't have free will is just depressing. That means that everything that will and has happened was/is predetermined and that living is basically meaningless as you cant change anything, even yourself. I choose to believe in free will even if the evidence points to the contrary just for my own sane well being. That scientific video that was posted earlier does prove that free will does exist though as electrons movements are random.
You choose to believe in something that "evidence points to the contrary" for your sanity? lolwut?
|
On June 01 2012 00:57 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 23:05 gameguard wrote:
Based on what scientific evidence lol. We're not even close to uncovering the mechanism of how conciousness comes about. When you dont understand a system fully, you make a functional model. For all intents and purposes we do have free will. We don't even have to get to "consciousness". Try physics.
Yeah, try quantum physics and suddenly we are back to "for all intents and purposes we do have free will"... And you quite obviously don't understand what it is to be agnostic, so perhaps you should refrain from ridiculing others...
|
On June 01 2012 03:20 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 03:16 Sovern wrote:
Thinking that we don't have free will is just depressing. That means that everything that will and has happened was/is predetermined and that living is basically meaningless as you cant change anything, even yourself. I choose to believe in free will even if the evidence points to the contrary just for my own sane well being. That scientific video that was posted earlier does prove that free will does exist though as electrons movements are random. You choose to believe in something that "evidence points to the contrary" for your sanity? lolwut?
Haha, I mis typed that. I was talking while typing. Anyways, what I meant was that right now the evidence points to there being free will BUT if it ever pointed to there being no free will and even if it was proven to the niche degree I'd still believe in free will just to save my sanity.
On May 31 2012 22:51 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 09:25 Sovern wrote:
In my opinion and based on scientific evidence (see the video posted earlier in this thread about the uncertainty of electrons) I do believe that we have free will. Like the scientist said in the video, there's always the wild card and random factor. If this wild card of electrons being random took place (which it did) since the beginning of man kind than it could have completely altered any predetermined path that people may have had and "unlocked" free will for everyone a long, long time ago.
I know this is off topic but I'd have to agree with the poster a few pages ago that said that he dislikes atheists elitists even more so than religious extremists. It's extremely annoying hearing someone bash someone because they think that they're smarter than them just because they don't believe in a God and the other person does.
Personally, I take the agnostic route and just say I don't know (even though that's what agnostic atheism is but I do believe that nature itself is God and there is a probability of a God that could be outside of the universe). "Based on scientific evidence" we do not have free will. There is no physical mechanism for it currently explainable. You are smarter than someone for concluding that based on current evidence God does not exist, rather than does. And I wouldn't consider 'hope' the most intelligent of emotions (or whatever it is). Be 'agnostic' about God the way you are 'agnostic' about Zeus. I mean, sure someone could be throwing all those thunderbolts, but really...
I disagree, how can you conclude off of one statement "saying that God does not exist" that someone is smarter than someone that says "God does exist". There are plenty of scientists that are theists and I'm sure that some of them are very intelligent, likewise there are also plenty of atheist scientists that are very intelligent. Also, saying that it does not exist based on current evidence would be a fallacy as we still have no proof as to whether God exists or does not exist. Oh, I'm also agnostic because "we just dont know".
I'd also argue that its healthier to believe in something than it is not to believe in something. It has been proven that people that believe in an afterlife and/or God and go to some sort of social gathering somewhat weekly based around their religious beliefs live longer than people that don't believe in anything.
I'd argue that I'd rather believe in something that's complete bullshit and be happy about it, gathering with other people talking about and looking forward to it and knowing there's some deity out there that can help you vs thinking that there's no free will and that there is no God and the only thing to look forward to when you get old is to die and rot 6 feet under.
|
On June 01 2012 03:16 Sovern wrote:
Thinking that we don't have free will is just depressing. That means that everything that will and has happened was/is predetermined and that living is basically meaningless as you cant change anything, even yourself. I choose to believe in free will even if the evidence points to the contrary just for my own sane well being. That scientific video that was posted earlier does prove that free will does exist though as electrons movements are random.
The thing is human conciousness and pshychology doesn't work as the way quantum mechanics works. Like i explained in my previous post, pshychology is explained by reasoning, by the memories, by the chemicals, by the enviromental effects that causing you to think or act in the way you do.
Subatomic particles acting random under certain circumstances does not mean you have free will. Your actions and the way you think has explainable things behind it like your genes, past experiences or enviromental reactions. And all these things are knowable. That is how this thing works.
Not having free will does not mean it is boring. You live by the rules of nature which makes you feel like what you do is your "own choice" and the chemicals, the way your body and brain works will help you enjoy sex for example. The thing is, you can change yourself or route in your life but it will not be random. I don't really know any other way to explain it.
|
On June 01 2012 03:37 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 03:20 seppolevne wrote:On June 01 2012 03:16 Sovern wrote:
Thinking that we don't have free will is just depressing. That means that everything that will and has happened was/is predetermined and that living is basically meaningless as you cant change anything, even yourself. I choose to believe in free will even if the evidence points to the contrary just for my own sane well being. That scientific video that was posted earlier does prove that free will does exist though as electrons movements are random. You choose to believe in something that "evidence points to the contrary" for your sanity? lolwut? Haha, I mis typed that. I was talking while typing. Anyways, what I meant was that right now the evidence points to there being free will BUT if it ever pointed to there being no free will and even if it was proven to the niche degree I'd still believe in free will just to save my sanity. Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 22:51 seppolevne wrote:On May 31 2012 09:25 Sovern wrote:
In my opinion and based on scientific evidence (see the video posted earlier in this thread about the uncertainty of electrons) I do believe that we have free will. Like the scientist said in the video, there's always the wild card and random factor. If this wild card of electrons being random took place (which it did) since the beginning of man kind than it could have completely altered any predetermined path that people may have had and "unlocked" free will for everyone a long, long time ago.
I know this is off topic but I'd have to agree with the poster a few pages ago that said that he dislikes atheists elitists even more so than religious extremists. It's extremely annoying hearing someone bash someone because they think that they're smarter than them just because they don't believe in a God and the other person does.
Personally, I take the agnostic route and just say I don't know (even though that's what agnostic atheism is but I do believe that nature itself is God and there is a probability of a God that could be outside of the universe). "Based on scientific evidence" we do not have free will. There is no physical mechanism for it currently explainable. You are smarter than someone for concluding that based on current evidence God does not exist, rather than does. And I wouldn't consider 'hope' the most intelligent of emotions (or whatever it is). Be 'agnostic' about God the way you are 'agnostic' about Zeus. I mean, sure someone could be throwing all those thunderbolts, but really... I disagree, how can you conclude off of one statement "saying that God does not exist" that someone is smarter than someone that says "God does exist". There are plenty of scientists that are theists and I'm sure that some of them are very intelligent, likewise there are also plenty of atheist scientists that are very intelligent. Also, saying that it does not exist based on current evidence would be a fallacy as we still have no proof as to whether God exists or does not exist. Oh, I'm also agnostic because "we just dont know". I'd also argue that its healthier to believe in something than it is not to believe in something. It has been proven that people that believe in an afterlife and/or God and go to some sort of social gathering somewhat weekly based around their religious beliefs live longer than people that don't believe in anything. I'd argue that I'd rather believe in something that's complete bullshit and be happy about it, gathering with other people talking about and looking forward to it and knowing there's some deity out there that can help you vs thinking that there's no free will and that there is no God and the only thing to look forward to when you get old is to die and rot 6 feet under.
As an absolute measure of intelligence absolutely not, don't worry. But to look at the current universe and our understanding of it and come to the conclusion that there is a God vs that there isn't one does not seem very intellectualy honest. Not in a "lol ur dumb" way but a "a rational mind should conclude that there isn't, but be open to the idea if evidence arises. If I were to look at an empty field and tell you a huge invis....blah blah." Sorry.
People do all sorts of things, worthy of looking in to and not. Living longer for believing in something without evidence? Not my cup of tea.
Then don't look that forward, there is plenty to look at right now. And there is nothing there to 'look forward' to anyway, so why worry about it?
|
On June 01 2012 04:37 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 03:37 Sovern wrote:On June 01 2012 03:20 seppolevne wrote:On June 01 2012 03:16 Sovern wrote:
Thinking that we don't have free will is just depressing. That means that everything that will and has happened was/is predetermined and that living is basically meaningless as you cant change anything, even yourself. I choose to believe in free will even if the evidence points to the contrary just for my own sane well being. That scientific video that was posted earlier does prove that free will does exist though as electrons movements are random. You choose to believe in something that "evidence points to the contrary" for your sanity? lolwut? Haha, I mis typed that. I was talking while typing. Anyways, what I meant was that right now the evidence points to there being free will BUT if it ever pointed to there being no free will and even if it was proven to the niche degree I'd still believe in free will just to save my sanity. On May 31 2012 22:51 seppolevne wrote:On May 31 2012 09:25 Sovern wrote:
In my opinion and based on scientific evidence (see the video posted earlier in this thread about the uncertainty of electrons) I do believe that we have free will. Like the scientist said in the video, there's always the wild card and random factor. If this wild card of electrons being random took place (which it did) since the beginning of man kind than it could have completely altered any predetermined path that people may have had and "unlocked" free will for everyone a long, long time ago.
I know this is off topic but I'd have to agree with the poster a few pages ago that said that he dislikes atheists elitists even more so than religious extremists. It's extremely annoying hearing someone bash someone because they think that they're smarter than them just because they don't believe in a God and the other person does.
Personally, I take the agnostic route and just say I don't know (even though that's what agnostic atheism is but I do believe that nature itself is God and there is a probability of a God that could be outside of the universe). "Based on scientific evidence" we do not have free will. There is no physical mechanism for it currently explainable. You are smarter than someone for concluding that based on current evidence God does not exist, rather than does. And I wouldn't consider 'hope' the most intelligent of emotions (or whatever it is). Be 'agnostic' about God the way you are 'agnostic' about Zeus. I mean, sure someone could be throwing all those thunderbolts, but really... I disagree, how can you conclude off of one statement "saying that God does not exist" that someone is smarter than someone that says "God does exist". There are plenty of scientists that are theists and I'm sure that some of them are very intelligent, likewise there are also plenty of atheist scientists that are very intelligent. Also, saying that it does not exist based on current evidence would be a fallacy as we still have no proof as to whether God exists or does not exist. Oh, I'm also agnostic because "we just dont know". I'd also argue that its healthier to believe in something than it is not to believe in something. It has been proven that people that believe in an afterlife and/or God and go to some sort of social gathering somewhat weekly based around their religious beliefs live longer than people that don't believe in anything. I'd argue that I'd rather believe in something that's complete bullshit and be happy about it, gathering with other people talking about and looking forward to it and knowing there's some deity out there that can help you vs thinking that there's no free will and that there is no God and the only thing to look forward to when you get old is to die and rot 6 feet under. As an absolute measure of intelligence absolutely not, don't worry. But to look at the current universe and our understanding of it and come to the conclusion that there is a God vs that there isn't one does not seem very intellectualy honest. Not in a "lol ur dumb" way but a "a rational mind should conclude that there isn't, but be open to the idea if evidence arises. If I were to look at an empty field and tell you a huge invis....blah blah." Sorry. People do all sorts of things, worthy of looking in to and not. Living longer for believing in something without evidence? Not my cup of tea. Then don't look that forward, there is plenty to look at right now. And there is nothing there to 'look forward' to anyway, so why worry about it?
In the end does only believing in things that have "evidence" really matter though? After all, evidence is only limited to what our mind dictates is evidence (basically limited by what the human mind can render). There might be other planes of existence that are beyond our minds capability's but can not be seen because we're limited to what our mind can render in the same way that a microphone cant render video.
As for the other poster that mentioned that free will doesn't exist, I'd have to argue that there isnt enough evidence to conclude that it does not exist. Like the other poster mentioned, we don't even have an understanding of the human conscious or our universe and how it was created (the big bang will almost definitely be proven wrong in the future just like how the "the world is flat" idea was proven to be wrong) so how can we determine if free will exists or not? I'd even argue that if free will truly doesn't exist, that points more towards there actually being a God than anything else.
|
God must have a free will though (at least from every discription of god i get the impression he must have a free will) so if god exists free will does exist (at least within god)
|
On June 01 2012 06:24 Rassy wrote:
God must have a free will though (at least from every discription of god i get the impression he must have a free will) so if god exists free will does exist (at least within god)
Funny how the least scientific thing I've read in this forum makes the most sense 
|
God cannot be all knowing and all powerful and also possess free will.
If God is all knowing then he knows the future and therefore cannot change the future.
If God cannot change the future then that implies that he is either not all powerful or he never "changes his mind."
If God never changes his mind, then he presumably lacks free will in so far as he has never and will never exercise it.
|
On June 01 2012 06:42 meadbert wrote:
God cannot be all knowing and all powerful and also possess free will.
If God is all knowing then he knows the future and therefore cannot change the future.
If God cannot change the future then that implies that he is either not all powerful or he never "changes his mind."
If God never changes his mind, then he presumably lacks free will in so far as he has never and will never exercise it.
But God is God. He can do whatever he wants cause he's God. I'm pretty sure that's free will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
