|
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 23:43 Chibithor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:45 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:39 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:29 radscorpion9 wrote:On March 05 2012 22:25 ooni wrote:Here is how I see it... HERE WE GO Imagine a machine that can predict the future by 100% or very close to it it should be considered 100%, let us say this machine exists and figures out the outcome by "pre-determined" data. IF (<- note the big if) a such machine was possible to build and one does the opposite, that person would have acquired "free will" (if one defines free will as changing the course of the future by a choice). If you are going to argue, "you do not have all the data, the data of the last choice was not included..."; That does not matter since everything is supposely 'predetermined', the last choice should have been predicted by the data at that point. If it cannot be predicted by the machine 2 possible futures exist depending on the person's choice  Well I believe humans or other animals with lessor intelligence is a crappier version of this machine. They can predict somewhat what will happen and act upon it, and has the free will to not to act upon it or act differently. What if that machine told the person what kind of sandwich they would have the next morning. If everything is determined, would it be fair to say that the person will always have that sandwich? If the machine told me which sandwich I was going to eat, do I believe that I would be physically incapable of choosing otherwise? I was thinking of that a while ago. Not sure if its 100% logical. (The reaction to hearing the data should have also been factored in, right?) No that's the thing, the person could choose otherwise, it is a possible scenario. Thus a machine that supposely determine the future (which is possible because everything is supposely "predetermined") is only one scenario, if it wants to be 100% correct it will need to produce 2, an alternative future depending on the choice the person makes. The reaction after hearing the data is not a data that is required, since everything is predetermined, it should be obvious for the machine to figure out what the decision will be (that decision should be predetermined). Oh btw, could someone debunk this idea? I always want to hear the people's thoughts on it. Assuming a person would not follow the machine's predictions, I guess it'd go into an infinite loop First it would calculate the first prediction, say: The person will eat in the next five minutes. Then it would calculate the reaction of the person to said prediction: The person will not eat in the next five minutes. Then it would either A) Calculate the reaction to the upper prediction, and the reaction to this prediction and so forth. or B) Discard the first predictions altogether. Since the first prediction is now false and will not be sent out by the machine, the second one is false as well, as it relies on the person seeing the first result. After this, maybe it'd give an error or start over. Or it could just predict that the nonsense above would happen and not bother with it at all. I'm kind of rambling about stuff I don't know much about, so there are probably errors in my train of thought, but whatever. You wanted thoughts, here you go!
It is a record that breaks the record player.
|
On March 05 2012 23:47 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:29 Deleuze wrote:On March 05 2012 22:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 21:58 solidbebe wrote:
I feel like there's something missing, your point is that we don't have free will and then your conclusion is religions abuse it. But that wasn't your original point at all. My point is that we don't have free will. But religions erroneously claim we do to explain away the existence of evil in the world. Actually Abrahmic religions usually borrow from Ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. Free Will and determinism have a rich and complex philosophical history to which this debate is unlikely to bring anything of consequence. In fact, it is quite interesting to see how a philosphical dialogue is completely obscured by a pseudo-politicical Religion vs Science debate Assume the existence of the Christian God. Explain the existence of evil in the world without referring to free will. Free will is a scapegoat that is abused by religions to justify the existence of evil. The existence of free will is way more basic than any question about the existence of God. Why would you criticise someone's beliefs if you think they have no free will? Why would you ask for logical arguments if you are, by your own assumptions, unbound by the rules of logic? So, yeah, you might be right. But if you are then the whole question is utterly meaningless.
Yes, I agree that the question of free will is more basic than any questions about religion.
But that doesn't invalidate what I said. Free will is abused by religion to justify the existence of evil in the world. If we disprove free will (not that dogmatic religionists would ever accept it), then we've disarmed them of this erroneous argument.
|
On March 05 2012 23:50 JustinL wrote:
There is a very popular viewpoint on free will, one that argues that "I can make decisions on my own, therefore I have free will".
This is absolutely not the case. The very idea in your head that "Hey, I can move my left OR right hand in the air, it's my choice!" is dictated by processes in your brain. These processes SHOULD be obeying strict laws. Strict laws give no scope for free will.
To argue free will, you need to argue that the brain is magical and disobeys the strict laws that the rest of the whole universe follow.
Just because you feel that you can make choices doesn't mean the process behind the choice was governed by a spiritual 'you'.
Indeed.
|
There is no free will, we are but a mindless puppets of the laws of physics. The only good thing is that we don't notice it.
|
On March 05 2012 23:46 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:41 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 23:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:10 Uncultured wrote: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. ... You've officially gone past the point or ridiculous. Our understanding of the universe is not complete, therefore making an assertion that it supports your own beliefs of a lack of free will is nothing but theory. This is all quite funny when our understand of the universe, as it is now, allows for both free will, and determinism. You keep bringing up straw men like fairies, god, and religion to try and prove your ridiculous point, when I'm not trying to prove the existence of any of those. To say that I've gone past the point of ridiculousness suggests to me that you didn't even read the OP, as I claimed in the OP that free will contradicts our understanding of the universe. Appealing to our lack of understanding of the universe doesn't change anything. Indeed, one can retort that believing in fairies, while unlikely to exist, is not laughable because our current understanding of the universe is incomplete. To assert the existence of free will, would destroy fundamental principles of physics that have never been falsified, i.e. that humans can, independent of the universe, exert influence on the motion of particles and the laws of nature. That would be absurd. While technically not impossible, I don't believe such a claim will ever be shown to be true. If you can harmonize our understanding of the universe with free will, as you claimed, I'd like to hear it, as I'm sure would many physicists.
I'm honestly of the belief that you're simply trolling now. I've brought up multiple cases of evidence that support free will as well as determinism. I'm honestly sick of harping on about it to a brick wall who's only response is to spout off psuedo-intellectual garbage. Take the time to read through a few things before trying to assert a claim that has been debated since the very genesis of philosophy, with no conclusions on either side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Genetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
One general trend you'll notice is none of these ideas assert themselves as fact. Or as absolute truth. That is because there is none.
|
So many misguided posts. The argument about predicting the particles in our bodies is flawed. You cant do it.
Quantum mechanics allows for things to happen that shouldnt be possible. And therfore are unpredictable.
more detailed reading can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
Because of this phenomenon it becomes impossible to predict a particles motion with 100% certainty. You dont know when its going to tunnel, it just suddenly does. Physicists use statistical probabilities when dealing with sub atomic particles. Radiation is the perfect example.
You can watch a single a uranium atom for a long time, and never know when it is going to decay. It doesnt give any clues, it just suddenly decays.
Someone said
To argue free will, you need to argue that the brain is magical and disobeys the strict laws that the rest of the whole universe follow.
Well... the laws arnt strict. When dealing with subatomic particles, you have to use probabilities.
So lets say you can predict the behaviour of a particle to 99.999999999999% accuracy.
You have 2 particles, each has a 99.999999999999% predictability. When looking at them interacting with each other this becomes.
0.99999999999999 * 0.99999999999999 = 0.99999999999998
as you can see, the probability has decreased. Now do that calculation for the billions and billions of particles in your body.
I think you'd end up with a tiny tiny number.
(This is a simplified example. the real statistics would be impossible to calculate, but would still result in a number close to 0)
Perhaps this is purely due to our lack of understanding of the universe. But whilst it is the current theory, unless some amazing physicist comes up with a better model, we're going to have to stick with it.
|
when you only believe that only what your 5 senses are able to detect exists, then i guess your point could be made.
but i don't think that.
You surely heard about the soul. My concept is that our brain is the "GUI" that our soul uses to experience this world.
I can't prove it, but u can't prove the opposite because we are limited to our 5 senses.
i think it's insane to state we know nearly everything there is about our world. We may also know nearly nothing.
|
On March 05 2012 23:59 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:41 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 23:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:10 Uncultured wrote: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. ... You've officially gone past the point or ridiculous. Our understanding of the universe is not complete, therefore making an assertion that it supports your own beliefs of a lack of free will is nothing but theory. This is all quite funny when our understand of the universe, as it is now, allows for both free will, and determinism. You keep bringing up straw men like fairies, god, and religion to try and prove your ridiculous point, when I'm not trying to prove the existence of any of those. To say that I've gone past the point of ridiculousness suggests to me that you didn't even read the OP, as I claimed in the OP that free will contradicts our understanding of the universe. Appealing to our lack of understanding of the universe doesn't change anything. Indeed, one can retort that believing in fairies, while unlikely to exist, is not laughable because our current understanding of the universe is incomplete. To assert the existence of free will, would destroy fundamental principles of physics that have never been falsified, i.e. that humans can, independent of the universe, exert influence on the motion of particles and the laws of nature. That would be absurd. While technically not impossible, I don't believe such a claim will ever be shown to be true. If you can harmonize our understanding of the universe with free will, as you claimed, I'd like to hear it, as I'm sure would many physicists. I'm honestly of the belief that you're simply trolling now. I've brought up multiple cases of evidence that support free will as well as determinism. I'm honestly sick of harping on about it to a brick wall who's only response is to spout of psuedo-intellectual garbage. Take the time to read through a few things before trying to assert a claim that has been debated since the very genesis of philosophy, with no conclusions on either side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Geneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmergenceOne general trend you'll notice is none of these ideas assert themselves as fact. Or as absolute truth. That is because there is none.
Have a look through my 500+ post history and tell me I'm trolling. I'm too serious to troll. I'm also sick of being called a trolling when I forcefully make an argument that some may disagree with.
I've just had another review of all your posts. Your only argument for the compatibility between free will and science is "randomness".
From your own article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics
Physics
Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[44] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[45] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Theory of Everything, and open to many different interpretations.[46][47]
Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one may still object that such indeterminism is for all practical purposes confined to microscopic phenomena.[49] This is not always the case: many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects. For instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of free will — see Experimental Psychology below for distinction). If a person's action is the result of complete quantum randomness, however, this in itself would mean that such traditional free will does not exist (because the action was not controllable by the physical being who claims to possess the free will).[50]
Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles, regardless of whether or not free will exists.[51] Physicist Stephen Hawking describes such ideas in his 2010 book The Grand Design. According to Hawking, these findings from quantum mechanics suggest that humans are sorts of complicated biological machines; although our behavior is impossible to predict perfectly in practice, "free will is just an illusion."[48] In other words, he thinks that only compatibilistic (deterministic) free will is possible based on the data.
Erwin Schrödinger, a nobel laureate in physics and one of the founders of quantum mechanics, came to a different conclusion than Hawking. Near the end of his 1944 essay titled "What Is Life?" he says that there is "incontrovertible direct experience" that we have free will. He also states that the human body is wholly or at least partially determined, leading him to conclude that "...'I' -am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature." He explains this position on free will by appealing to a notion of self that is emergent from the entire collection of atoms in his body, and other convictions about conscious experience. However, he also qualifies the conclusion as "necessarily subjective" in its "philosophical implications." Contrasting the views of Hawking and Schrödinger, it is clear that even among eminent physicists there is not unanimity regarding free will.
|
On March 06 2012 00:00 Rye. wrote:So many misguided posts. The argument about predicting the particles in our bodies is flawed. You cant do it. Quantum mechanics allows for things to happen that shouldnt be possible. And therfore are unpredictable. more detailed reading can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelingBecause of this phenomenon it becomes impossible to predict a particles motion with 100% certainty. You dont know when its going to tunnel, it just suddenly does. Physicists use statistical probabilities when dealing with sub atomic particles. Radiation is the perfect example. You can watch a single a uranium atom for a long time, and never know when it is going to decay. It doesnt give any clues, it just suddenly decays. Someone said Show nested quote +To argue free will, you need to argue that the brain is magical and disobeys the strict laws that the rest of the whole universe follow. Well... the laws arnt strict. When dealing with subatomic particles, you have to use probabilities. So lets say you can predict the behaviour of a particle to 99.999999999999% accuracy. You have 2 particles, each has a 99.999999999999% predictability. When looking at them interacting with each other this becomes. 0.99999999999999 * 0.99999999999999 = 0.99999999999998 as you can see, the probability has decreased. Now do that calculation for the billions and billions of particles in your body. I think you'd end up with a tiny tiny number. (This is a simplified example. the real statistics would be impossible to calculate, but would still result in a number close to 0) Perhaps this is purely due to our lack of understanding of the universe. But whilst it is the current theory, unless some amazing physicist comes up with a better model, we're going to have to stick with it.
Yeah but then his counter to your argument would be that these things are only observable in the micro world, and not the macro... Which itself has be evidenced to be false.
http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_o_connell_making_sense_of_a_visible_quantum_object.html
|
On March 05 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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. Your action to move or not is the culmination of every prior experience or thought you have had. In it's most basic form, it is the aggregate of the chain of causes and effects that had led the elementary particles that make up the situation you're in to be in that particular configuration at that particular time. But as I've said, the world works "as if" you had free will. I don't get any profound insight on how I should make "decisions" or live my life based on my disbelief in free will. But it's not like I had a choice...
The world only works as if you have free will if you still accept it as possible that you do.
If I could definitely show people they had no free will, without question, I prove there is no free-will, most people, I think, would shut down in confusion. Why act if you don't control it, why punish or reward if they don't control it, why have the argument about punishing or rewarding when the people who hand out the judgement don't control their thoughts either.
I'm not saying everyone would, but that it would fundamentally break down everything we do and know. How can we even trust our knowledge of physics, perhaps these were all things we were predetermined to discover and know, maybe we can't even understand the other concepts, if there are any.
Did I accept that theory because it makes sense, or does it make sense because I'm determined to believe it?
But physics isn't certain. It's not definitive. The relativity and laws we observe in mass are just "averages" just what will "probably happen" based on probabilities. Quantum forces, which we don't come close to understanding, act beneath it. Perhaps therein lies our answer. Maybe it's an even deeper level beneath that.
And to the other guy who pointed out that "We don't always act in our own interests" Yeah, I get that, it's an obvious fact, there was obvious tongue-in-cheek "we all act out of spite" comment afterward, I assume you didn't read it. That, or you thought I really think we all act out of spite.
|
Agree with the OP. Makes me not give a fuck about the ups and downs of life. Just keep moving forward.
|
I think the OP shows the typical confusion with respect to free will that is predominant in the intellectual and even some philosophical communities. The whole reasoning: "because all particles act lawful..." or even "because determinism is true ... " it would follow that "... there is no free will" seems fundamentally flawed to me. For if particles would not act lawfully or if indeterminism was true how could this in any way extend or even facilitate the freedom of my will?
It rather seems to me that in order for free will to "exist" one needs to answer the question, whether there are any "real options" in actions. This certainly appears to be the case, for it certainly feels that way to anybody, for if "I could do X" then that seems to entail that "I am free to do X". Whether this is true or not the answer cannot depend on the fact that we are at base collections of particles that are subject to natural (deterministic or indeterministic) laws. Compatibilism directly follows.
Instead the phrase "I have no option because my brain cannot "let" me do otherwise, since it is a collection of particles" is simply hollow and not informative. As Daniel Dennett puts it: "If you make yourself really small you can externalize virtually everything" even your brain and your freedom of will.
Edit: Typo.
|
On March 06 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:59 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 23:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:41 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 23:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:10 Uncultured wrote: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. ... You've officially gone past the point or ridiculous. Our understanding of the universe is not complete, therefore making an assertion that it supports your own beliefs of a lack of free will is nothing but theory. This is all quite funny when our understand of the universe, as it is now, allows for both free will, and determinism. You keep bringing up straw men like fairies, god, and religion to try and prove your ridiculous point, when I'm not trying to prove the existence of any of those. To say that I've gone past the point of ridiculousness suggests to me that you didn't even read the OP, as I claimed in the OP that free will contradicts our understanding of the universe. Appealing to our lack of understanding of the universe doesn't change anything. Indeed, one can retort that believing in fairies, while unlikely to exist, is not laughable because our current understanding of the universe is incomplete. To assert the existence of free will, would destroy fundamental principles of physics that have never been falsified, i.e. that humans can, independent of the universe, exert influence on the motion of particles and the laws of nature. That would be absurd. While technically not impossible, I don't believe such a claim will ever be shown to be true. If you can harmonize our understanding of the universe with free will, as you claimed, I'd like to hear it, as I'm sure would many physicists. I'm honestly of the belief that you're simply trolling now. I've brought up multiple cases of evidence that support free will as well as determinism. I'm honestly sick of harping on about it to a brick wall who's only response is to spout of psuedo-intellectual garbage. Take the time to read through a few things before trying to assert a claim that has been debated since the very genesis of philosophy, with no conclusions on either side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Geneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmergenceOne general trend you'll notice is none of these ideas assert themselves as fact. Or as absolute truth. That is because there is none. I've just had another review of all your posts. Your only argument for the compaobility between free will and science is "randomness". From your own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#PhysicsPhysics Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[44] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[45] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Theory of Everything, and open to many different interpretations.[46][47] Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one may still object that such indeterminism is for all practical purposes confined to microscopic phenomena.[49] This is not always the case: many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects. For instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of free will — see Experimental Psychology below for distinction). If a person's action is the result of complete quantum randomness, however, this in itself would mean that such traditional free will does not exist (because the action was not controllable by the physical being who claims to possess the free will).[50]Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles, regardless of whether or not free will exists.[51] Physicist Stephen Hawking describes such ideas in his 2010 book The Grand Design. According to Hawking, these findings from quantum mechanics suggest that humans are sorts of complicated biological machines; although our behavior is impossible to predict perfectly in practice, "free will is just an illusion."[48] In other words, he thinks that only compatibilistic (deterministic) free will is possible based on the data. Erwin Schrödinger, a nobel laureate in physics and one of the founders of quantum mechanics, came to a different conclusion than Hawking. Near the end of his 1944 essay titled "What Is Life?" he says that there is "incontrovertible direct experience" that we have free will. He also states that the human body is wholly or at least partially determined, leading him to conclude that "...'I' -am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature." He explains this position on free will by appealing to a notion of self that is emergent from the entire collection of atoms in his body, and other convictions about conscious experience. However, he also qualifies the conclusion as "necessarily subjective" in its "philosophical implications." Contrasting the views of Hawking and Schrödinger, it is clear that even among eminent physicists there is not unanimity regarding free will.
Did you even read the whole thing? I bolded the important part.
You keep saying "Physics does not support the idea of free will." Or "If free will exists we need to rewrite all of physics" like there's one unifying belief of it presented as fact. When not even the greatest physicists of all time can agree on the matter.
|
so me just randomly punching the wall is all an act of physics.... hmmmmmm no
|
On March 06 2012 00:05 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote: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. Your action to move or not is the culmination of every prior experience or thought you have had. In it's most basic form, it is the aggregate of the chain of causes and effects that had led the elementary particles that make up the situation you're in to be in that particular configuration at that particular time. But as I've said, the world works "as if" you had free will. I don't get any profound insight on how I should make "decisions" or live my life based on my disbelief in free will. But it's not like I had a choice... The world only works as if you have free will if you still accept it as possible that you do. If I could definitely show people they had no free will, without question, I prove there is no free-will, most people, I think, would shut down in confusion. Why act if you don't control it, why punish or reward if they don't control it, why have the argument about punishing or rewarding when the people who hand out the judgement don't control their thoughts either. I'm not saying everyone would, but that it would fundamentally break down everything we do and know. How can we even trust our knowledge of physics, perhaps these were all things we were predetermined to discover and know, maybe we can't even understand the other concepts, if there are any. Did I accept that theory because it makes sense, or does it make sense because I'm determined to believe it? But physics isn't certain. It's not definitive. The relativity and laws we observe in mass are just "averages" just what will "probably happen" based on probabilities. Quantum forces, which we don't come close to understanding, act beneath it. Perhaps therein lies our answer. Maybe it's an even deeper level beneath that. And to the other guy who pointed out that "We don't always act in our own interests" Yeah, I get that, it's an obvious fact, there was obvious tongue-in-cheek "we all act out of spite" comment afterward, I assume you didn't read it. That, or you thought I really think we all act out of spite.
It doesn't change the fact that if you do nothing in life, you'll almost certainly get nothing.
|
On March 06 2012 00:09 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:59 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 23:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:41 Uncultured wrote:On March 05 2012 23:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:10 Uncultured wrote: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. ... You've officially gone past the point or ridiculous. Our understanding of the universe is not complete, therefore making an assertion that it supports your own beliefs of a lack of free will is nothing but theory. This is all quite funny when our understand of the universe, as it is now, allows for both free will, and determinism. You keep bringing up straw men like fairies, god, and religion to try and prove your ridiculous point, when I'm not trying to prove the existence of any of those. To say that I've gone past the point of ridiculousness suggests to me that you didn't even read the OP, as I claimed in the OP that free will contradicts our understanding of the universe. Appealing to our lack of understanding of the universe doesn't change anything. Indeed, one can retort that believing in fairies, while unlikely to exist, is not laughable because our current understanding of the universe is incomplete. To assert the existence of free will, would destroy fundamental principles of physics that have never been falsified, i.e. that humans can, independent of the universe, exert influence on the motion of particles and the laws of nature. That would be absurd. While technically not impossible, I don't believe such a claim will ever be shown to be true. If you can harmonize our understanding of the universe with free will, as you claimed, I'd like to hear it, as I'm sure would many physicists. I'm honestly of the belief that you're simply trolling now. I've brought up multiple cases of evidence that support free will as well as determinism. I'm honestly sick of harping on about it to a brick wall who's only response is to spout of psuedo-intellectual garbage. Take the time to read through a few things before trying to assert a claim that has been debated since the very genesis of philosophy, with no conclusions on either side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_processhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Geneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmergenceOne general trend you'll notice is none of these ideas assert themselves as fact. Or as absolute truth. That is because there is none. I've just had another review of all your posts. Your only argument for the compaobility between free will and science is "randomness". From your own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#PhysicsPhysics Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[44] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[45] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Theory of Everything, and open to many different interpretations.[46][47] Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one may still object that such indeterminism is for all practical purposes confined to microscopic phenomena.[49] This is not always the case: many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects. For instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of free will — see Experimental Psychology below for distinction). If a person's action is the result of complete quantum randomness, however, this in itself would mean that such traditional free will does not exist (because the action was not controllable by the physical being who claims to possess the free will).[50]Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles, regardless of whether or not free will exists.[51] Physicist Stephen Hawking describes such ideas in his 2010 book The Grand Design. According to Hawking, these findings from quantum mechanics suggest that humans are sorts of complicated biological machines; although our behavior is impossible to predict perfectly in practice, "free will is just an illusion."[48] In other words, he thinks that only compatibilistic (deterministic) free will is possible based on the data. Erwin Schrödinger, a nobel laureate in physics and one of the founders of quantum mechanics, came to a different conclusion than Hawking. Near the end of his 1944 essay titled "What Is Life?" he says that there is "incontrovertible direct experience" that we have free will. He also states that the human body is wholly or at least partially determined, leading him to conclude that "...'I' -am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature." He explains this position on free will by appealing to a notion of self that is emergent from the entire collection of atoms in his body, and other convictions about conscious experience. However, he also qualifies the conclusion as "necessarily subjective" in its "philosophical implications." Contrasting the views of Hawking and Schrödinger, it is clear that even among eminent physicists there is not unanimity regarding free will. Did you even read the whole thing? I bolded the important part.
I did read it. There is no citation of the lack of unanimity.
The argument that free will exists "by appealing to a notion of self that is emergent from the entire collection of atoms in his body, and other convictions about conscious experience" is voodoo, and backed up by nothing.
The same is true for the statement: "...'I' -am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature.".
Again, you've made no coherent explanation on how free will is consistent with modern science. You've talked about randomness, which is an argument that has been demolished. And now you point to the philosophy, as opposed to the science, of a physicist.
|
On March 06 2012 00:09 Diizzy wrote:
so me just randomly punching the wall is all an act of physics.... hmmmmmm no
But the fact you would "randomly" punch the walls is not random at all. Something prompted you to do it, maybe anger or some other emotion. Or maybe you trying to surprise someone by being "random." AKA unpredictable. But really, with something like that, because it is a large and deliberate, there is no way that it can be random. It could probably be predicted, as well, with the right information.
What I am saying is that physics are definitely involved... chemicals in your brain prompted you to do that, and you consciously decided to follow through.
|
Yep. Done trying. Talking to a brick wall.
|
my purpose in life was to write a few words about this subject. There is no free will. As OP mentioned the universe is governed by physical rules and these applies to humans. Another problem will free will is that when in time did we start to have free will? 10000 BC or what? If it happened over night you might call it supernatural intervention, i doubt that. If it happened gradually i would say it's an parallel process to the human condition, namely self-consciousness. As we grew more aware of are being we thought that our inherent urges were driven by our mind unaware of the fact that our ancestors were urges was driven by genes and environment. Also if we had free will are restricted by a many factors such as emotions, bodily needs, social interaction and environment. In the past and sadly still in present times these restrictions are more centered around survival as food, shelter and water was a necessity for human life.
|
On March 06 2012 00:15 Uncultured wrote:
Yep. Done trying. Talking to a brick wall.
Not just a brick wall, but a brick wall with a professed worldview that insists that logical argument is moot anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
