|
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 05 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:45 Geiko wrote:On March 05 2012 22:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 22:41 Uncultured wrote:
The OP completely ignores a wealth of science that view things as stochastic. This is very archaic thinking that leads me to believe the OP just read up about determinism for the first time without actually researching the topic at all.
OP refers to physics quite a bit, but fails to address the Quantum level of physics where many things are determined by probabilities, which are inherently non-deterministic(things like random fields). Things are not so one sided. It is not black and white. Things can be both deterministic and random. I've address that like 4 times in this thread. This is probably the 5th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free. How do you know that what appears random to us, isn't in fact the expression of god's will ? Because: 1. There is no evidence of God. 2. According to the uncertainty principle, it is not possible to know precisely the outcome of random particle events, thus they cannot be your will. 3. It would be voodoo to claim you can will the random quantum fluctuations of elementary particles. 4. If your actions are determined by God's will, then they are not determined by free will.
I can easily imagine a world where our "spirits" exist in unobservable state, linked to our bodies and able to exert influence on your decisions through complex manipulations of random particle events. I can tie all of this up to the current quantium mechanic theories.
Doesn't mean I believe in it though.
I'm just saying that nothing we know as a scientific fact contradicts the idea of free will or some kind of religion.
|
There is the possibility of an "emergent property". Basically that the force of "descision" has always been one of the laws of the universe, along with stuff like magnetism and all that. But it's only exhibited by certain things such as a human brain. Just like classical, predictable mechanics emerge from the randomness of quantum mechanics, it is possible that nonpredictable things arise from classical mechanics.
|
On March 05 2012 22:55 Pholon wrote:
Shader knows what's up ^^
Also relevant:
Love. This.
|
Why can't it be both? The idea of free will is so poorly defined that quite frankly I think it pretty clearly is both.
Your will is determined by synapses and all that stuff. That's what your will is. It is governed by chemicals and things like that so it could possibly be predicted. However I think people forget that we as people react to things. We aren't destined to do things because if we see a rock flying at us we avoid it. But it's worse than that. We react to information. Are these chemistry and physics? Sure. But that's what your will is.
|
On March 05 2012 22:58 Tanukki wrote:
There is the possibility of an "emergent property". Basically that the force of "descision" has always been one of the laws of the universe, along with stuff like magnetism and all that. But it's only exhibited by certain things such as a human brain. Just like classical, predictable mechanics emerge from the randomness of quantum mechanics, it is possible that nonpredictable things arise from classical mechanics.
Yes, this too.
|
On March 05 2012 22:58 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
I've address that like 5 times in this thread.
This is probably the 6th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free. Equating an RNG to a staochastic process is silly. RNG's are not random, but predetermined by the will of it's creator. We have no evidence of such a creator for the random processes we see in physics.
Exactly, quantum fluctuations are perfectly random according to our best knowledge.
A stochastic process according to it's strict definition, i.e. an indexed sequence of random variables, is essentially the same as a hypothetical RNG that can simulate the probability distribution of the random variables, in the sense that the latter produces a sample path of the former.
|
Determinism vs Free Will is a very hard ( and very old) problem to which I dont have an answer (and I doubt Sams book will add anything new).
However I do think that the burden of proof lies upon those who claim there is such thing as free will. Before 'thinking' organisms came into existence the universe was ruled by causality. Then all of a sudden human beings come along and this magical thing called free will springs into existence?
Im open to the idea of free will, but proponents of it need to do more to prove their position.
|
On March 05 2012 22:58 Tanukki wrote:
There is the possibility of an "emergent property". Basically that the force of "descision" has always been one of the laws of the universe, along with stuff like magnetism and all that. But it's only exhibited by certain things such as a human brain. Just like classical, predictable mechanics emerge from the randomness of quantum mechanics, it is possible that nonpredictable things arise from classical mechanics.
If this were true, we would have to rewrite all our physics textbooks.
Fortunately, we don't have to rewrite our physics textbooks because there is no evidence to support this assertion.
You've claimed a "heliocentric model" of consciousness, whereby the universe revolves around us.
|
On March 05 2012 22:49 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:46 CyDe wrote:
Uh oh, this thread looks like it starting to descend into attacks and one liners.
To try and bring it back onto a discussion, I'm going to pose the question about randomness in quantum mechanics.
So I don't know anything about this, but let's just take an atom's electrons for example. One could say that the location of the electrons is random, but because it is within a certain field, doesn't that mean that they are in a 'controlled random'? The electrons cannot just fly out to any random point in the universe, they are bound by certain restrictions, which really doesn't make them random in a true (I use that word non-literally) sense.
Could someone explain this in the quantum mechanics perspective? Because from what I would imagine it is fairly similar. Random doesn't mean the distribution function has to be uniform over the whole universe. When you roll a dice, you'll have a random between 1 and 6, but you'll never get 7.
Hmm. Food for thought. Still, in my ideas, random is really something based on infinity in a way; something that can have an infinite number of outcomes.
Like, I suppose the chances of rolling a six repeatedly are reduced as you repeat tests; first roll, 1/6. Second roll 1/36. Third roll 1/216. etc. Eventually the denominator becomes so great that it is in a practical sense infinity. And in this way you can logically predict that the next number will not be six. And it won't be, after a certain point. The denominator will become infinity.
Oh, and this is just something that came to me a while ago, and I could never lose the thought. Imagine a random universe which could result in anything happening... what if that universe suddenly had its "denominator of reason" tipped...
Hard to explain. Let's say that this universe is completely random. Which is completely possible. It has been following a pattern and suddenly it decides to stop. Like, the universe is a die, and it's been rolling sixes for billions of years. Then, suddenly, at any time, it could roll a five, and everything as we know it would change and break. Woah.
I don't know, something I like to contemplate.
|
On March 05 2012 23:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:58 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 22:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
I've address that like 5 times in this thread.
This is probably the 6th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free. Equating an RNG to a staochastic process is silly. RNG's are not random, but predetermined by the will of it's creator. We have no evidence of such a creator for the random processes we see in physics. Exactly, quantum fluctuations are perfectly random according to our best knowledge. A stochastic process according to it's strict definition, i.e. an indexed sequence of random variables, is essentially the same as a hypothetical RNG that can simulate the probability distribution of the random variables, in the sense that the latter produces a sample path of the former.
I'm not arguing for the existence of god, I'm arguing for the existence of free will as well as determinism both. When you say "essentially" the same you are qualifying the statement. Essentially the same and the same are not the same. 
|
I see few reasons to discuss this if the thread is soon closed anyway... and this thread (as so many other interesting treads) will be closed here on TL..right ?
User was warned for this post
|
On March 05 2012 23:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:58 Tanukki wrote:
There is the possibility of an "emergent property". Basically that the force of "descision" has always been one of the laws of the universe, along with stuff like magnetism and all that. But it's only exhibited by certain things such as a human brain. Just like classical, predictable mechanics emerge from the randomness of quantum mechanics, it is possible that nonpredictable things arise from classical mechanics. If this were true, we would have to rewrite all our physics textbooks. Fortunately, we don't have to rewrite our physics textbooks because there is no evidence to support this assertion. You've claimed a "heliocentric model" of consciousness, whereby the universe revolves around us.
You keep saying there's no evidence to support other people ideas like it's relevant to the discussion. There's no evidence for your belief either. The only evidence we have at the moment is that the world operates under the principles of both free will, and determinism. Until we know more there's no way to extrapolate more than this.
|
On March 05 2012 22:58 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 22:45 Geiko wrote:On March 05 2012 22:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 22:41 Uncultured wrote:
The OP completely ignores a wealth of science that view things as stochastic. This is very archaic thinking that leads me to believe the OP just read up about determinism for the first time without actually researching the topic at all.
OP refers to physics quite a bit, but fails to address the Quantum level of physics where many things are determined by probabilities, which are inherently non-deterministic(things like random fields). Things are not so one sided. It is not black and white. Things can be both deterministic and random. I've address that like 4 times in this thread. This is probably the 5th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free. How do you know that what appears random to us, isn't in fact the expression of god's will ? Because: 1. There is no evidence of God. 2. According to the uncertainty principle, it is not possible to know precisely the outcome of random particle events, thus they cannot be your will. 3. It would be voodoo to claim you can will the random quantum fluctuations of elementary particles. 4. If your actions are determined by God's will, then they are not determined by free will. I can easily imagine a world where our "spirits" exist in unobservable state, linked to our bodies and able to exert influence on your decisions through complex manipulations of random particle events. I can tie all of this up to the current quantium mechanic theories. Doesn't mean I believe in it though. I'm just saying that nothing we know as a scientific fact contradicts the idea of free will or some kind of religion.
In your case, our will would be the machinations of these ethereal spirits for which there is no evidence. It would still not be free.
Free will does contradict our scientific understanding of the universe, as it suggests that the human mind is able to act independent of it, to have thoughts and choose actions that are independent of the motion of particles that aggregate to our experience of reality. Essentially to defy the laws of physics.
|
On March 05 2012 23:09 vvLOSTvv wrote:
I see few reasons to discuss this if the thread is soon closed anyway... and this thread (as so many other interesting treads) will be closed here on TL..right ?
Well, as far as I know, as long as the discussion stays 'clean' and on topic (which I suppose is very controversial), and the thread isn't flooded with people saying the thread needs to be closed it MIGHT stay open... one can only hope
|
I'm not going to descend with you guys into the depths of physics to explain this.
To bring back something I read earlier in the thread...If we are destined to behave in pre-determined ways..What governs them?
Imagine a scenario where someone has a gun to my head and the evildoer demands I move my leg. What if I refuse? This is a possibility. Why would I refuse? If my actions are predetermined, how would I refuse? Surely evolution would show us that I should behave in my best interest, correct? I mean, if evolution is true, then things must, by and large, operate in such a way as to preserve themselves?
So, why can I refuse to move my leg and thus die? Unless we are governed on something else? Maybe we all simply live out of spite. All the things we do are to spite death, except in my scenario, where my "willingness" to spite death is lower than how much I want to spite the evildoer?
I've read the research that actions begin before the conscious brain realizes it. I understand that, but why is it, that once I do realize I am moving, I can stop it? Without free will, how is this possible? Is the argument that evolution and the universe has given us two, completely uncontrollable, competing, "wills" that we are prisoners inside?
For one, I don't believe it. I do recognize that instinct kicks in before the brain realizes it, as an evolutionary response, but the brain has veto power, it's obvious. My consciousness creates justifications for the reasons to not do something. I can operate against, or within, my own interests, on a whim, for any justification.
What purpose would that serve, in evolution? It makes far more sense for there to be an uncontrolled or less-controlled component (instincts, and auto responses) that protect us when we don't have time to consider, and then another, more evolved portion, that allows us to consider. Are you posturing that considering can't exist because of our current flimsy knowledge of physics? I don't accept that, when it goes against everything we all feel.
And even so, even if you are correct, it benefits us not at all to know it. To know that we in fact have no control would unravel our entire existence, and probably be the death of humanity.
To finish it up? I can definitely say, from all the things I have witnessed and all the things in the world that are known to us..If we don't have true free-will, we have the most free-will of any object, thing, or being. We're as close as one can get. We should leave it at that.
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
...Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move
This argument seems a bit silly. There is no 'we' outside the particles that constitute our body and their motions. In the same way, there is no choice, free will or consciousness outside of the interactions of those particles. Does that mean that consciousness doesn't exist? Obviously not. I don't see why free will has to be the punching bag here. Free will is every bit as real as other abstract concepts relating to the mind, no more, no less.
|
On March 05 2012 23:05 paralleluniverse wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 05 2012 22:58 Tanukki wrote:
There is the possibility of an "emergent property". Basically that the force of "descision" has always been one of the laws of the universe, along with stuff like magnetism and all that. But it's only exhibited by certain things such as a human brain. Just like classical, predictable mechanics emerge from the randomness of quantum mechanics, it is possible that nonpredictable things arise from classical mechanics. If this were true, we would have to rewrite all our physics textbooks. Fortunately, we don't have to rewrite our physics textbooks because there is no evidence to support this assertion. You've claimed a "heliocentric model" of consciousness, whereby the universe revolves around us.
Just being a devil's advocate. But there is evidence beyond the devil's proof...I experience my descision-making as free will. You can claim that the experience is an illusion, but you are unable to pinpoint the ultimate causes of our actions. While I can explain them perfectly by admitting the existence of "descision" as an emergent force, independent of other forces.
|
On March 05 2012 23:06 CyDe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:49 Geiko wrote:On March 05 2012 22:46 CyDe wrote:
Uh oh, this thread looks like it starting to descend into attacks and one liners.
To try and bring it back onto a discussion, I'm going to pose the question about randomness in quantum mechanics.
So I don't know anything about this, but let's just take an atom's electrons for example. One could say that the location of the electrons is random, but because it is within a certain field, doesn't that mean that they are in a 'controlled random'? The electrons cannot just fly out to any random point in the universe, they are bound by certain restrictions, which really doesn't make them random in a true (I use that word non-literally) sense.
Could someone explain this in the quantum mechanics perspective? Because from what I would imagine it is fairly similar. Random doesn't mean the distribution function has to be uniform over the whole universe. When you roll a dice, you'll have a random between 1 and 6, but you'll never get 7. Hmm. Food for thought. Still, in my ideas, random is really something based on infinity in a way; something that can have an infinite number of outcomes. Like, I suppose the chances of rolling a six repeatedly are reduced as you repeat tests; first roll, 1/6. Second roll 1/36. Third roll 1/216. etc. Eventually the denominator becomes so great that it is in a practical sense infinity. And in this way you can logically predict that the next number will not be six. And it won't be, after a certain point. The denominator will become infinity. Oh, and this is just something that came to me a while ago, and I could never lose the thought. Imagine a random universe which could result in anything happening... what if that universe suddenly had its "denominator of reason" tipped... Hard to explain. Let's say that this universe is completely random. Which is completely possible. It has been following a pattern and suddenly it decides to stop. Like, the universe is a die, and it's been rolling sixes for billions of years. Then, suddenly, at any time, it could roll a five, and everything as we know it would change and break. Woah. I don't know, something I like to contemplate.
Your understanding of probability is fundamentally flawed. If you roll a dice, each outcome is independent of the last. Assuming a fair dice, if you roll 3 sixes in a roll, the chance that the next roll is six is still 1/6. The reason why in the long run the probability of rolling six or any number is 1/6, despite having rolled 3 sixes, is because in the long run, the 3 sixes of your first rolled is swarmed and marginalized by the 1/6 probabilities of a large number of later rolls.
There are many probability distributions, some have a finite number of outcomes, e.g. rolling a dice has 6 outcomes, while others have a infinite number of outcomes, e.g the temperature at a particular point of earth or the logarithm of the change in price of Apple shares tomorrow.
|
On March 05 2012 23:10 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 22:58 Tanukki wrote:
There is the possibility of an "emergent property". Basically that the force of "descision" has always been one of the laws of the universe, along with stuff like magnetism and all that. But it's only exhibited by certain things such as a human brain. Just like classical, predictable mechanics emerge from the randomness of quantum mechanics, it is possible that nonpredictable things arise from classical mechanics. If this were true, we would have to rewrite all our physics textbooks. Fortunately, we don't have to rewrite our physics textbooks because there is no evidence to support this assertion. You've claimed a "heliocentric model" of consciousness, whereby the universe revolves around us. You keep saying there's no evidence to support other people ideas like it's relevant to the discussion. There's no evidence for your belief either. The only evidence we have at the moment is that the world operates under the principles of both free will, and determinism. Until we know more there's no way to extrapolate more than this.
The evidence is that the existence of free will contradicts our understanding of the universe.
What evidence is there that fairies exists? The only evidence that they don't exist is that their existence would contradict our understanding of the universe.
While this doesn't disprove fairies, it is enough to reject the idea until supporting evidence can be found. The same applies for free will.
|
On March 05 2012 23:13 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to descend with you guys into the depths of physics to explain this.
To bring back something I read earlier in the thread...If we are destined to behave in pre-determined ways..What governs them?
Imagine a scenario where someone has a gun to my head and the evildoer demands I move my leg. What if I refuse? This is a possibility. Why would I refuse? If my actions are predetermined, how would I refuse? Surely evolution would show us that I should behave in my best interest, correct? I mean, if evolution is true, then things must, by and large, operate in such a way as to preserve themselves?
So, why can I refuse to move my leg and thus die? Unless we are governed on something else? Maybe we all simply live out of spite. All the things we do are to spite death, except in my scenario, where my "willingness" to spite death is lower than how much I want to spite the evildoer?
I've read the research that actions begin before the conscious brain realizes it. I understand that, but why is it, that once I do realize I am moving, I can stop it? Without free will, how is this possible? Is the argument that evolution and the universe has given us two, completely uncontrollable, competing, "wills" that we are prisoners inside?
For one, I don't believe it. I do recognize that instinct kicks in before the brain realizes it, as an evolutionary response, but the brain has veto power, it's obvious. My consciousness creates justifications for the reasons to not do something. I can operate against, or within, my own interests, on a whim, for any justification.
What purpose would that serve, in evolution? It makes far more sense for there to be an uncontrolled or less-controlled component (instincts, and auto responses) that protect us when we don't have time to consider, and then another, more evolved portion, that allows us to consider. Are you posturing that considering can't exist because of our current flimsy knowledge of physics? I don't accept that, when it goes against everything we all feel.
And even so, even if you are correct, it benefits us not at all to know it. To know that we in fact have no control would unravel our entire existence, and probably be the death of humanity.
To finish it up? I can definitely say, from all the things I have witnessed and all the things in the world that are known to us..If we don't have true free-will, we have the most free-will of any object, thing, or being. We're as close as one can get. We should leave it at that.
Evolution is does not work that way. You will not always make decisions that's best for yourself. You argument fails right in the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
