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.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
@ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
To the OP, i compeletely agree with your post and maybe this is an interesting video on Youtube you want to add on your post:
Thousands and thousands of TL posts on religion and freewill. None ended or will end up well. That is the nature of serious topic vs internet anonymity. It's bound to get messy soon.
On topic, slightly, I've been following Sam Harris since Project Reason and have read his End of Faith. Nothing really earth-shattering though.
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
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.
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is.
You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
That's not how it works. In reality, more often than not, your leg moves first, then your conscious mind comes up with a justification why you want your leg to move and records a false memory where the after-action justification becomes the cause of the movement. Well, that's what the best data says anyway, there's still some ambiguity. Look up the Libet experiment and the neuroscience of free will.
This is slightly different from the philosophical debate of how deterministic physical laws and the possibility of free will relate to each other.
Your belief in determinism was determined by the predetermined motion of atoms in your brain, as is Skilledblob's disbelief. So the ultimate explanation for our thoughts and beliefs do not come down to how well we pursue truth or science, but by the happenstance of atomic motion.
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is.
You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
You state it as if it is a fact.
The two cannot be distinguished, that is why people keep discussing it.
The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will.
Simplified, computers make decisions based on a set based of rules that have been programmed in. The decisions are then reflected by pixels shown on the screen. The most advanced AIs simply are able to reprogram those rules that initially impact the decision, but the methods that it uses to reprogram those rules are still other rules, so to speak.
I think that the human brain is simply an incredibly advanced super computer that we cannot fully comprehend. Instead of wires, we have neurones in the brain. The way that our neurones are wired is based upon our past experiences as well as the way the brain has evolved over millions of years. Any decision that we make is purely based upon how the electrical signals travel in the neurones and where they end up.
To me, the concept of free will is simply an easy way to explain all the decisions that we make that we cannot understand. However, I think that in the future, if we were able to examine the brain under a super microscope, we would be able to understand every single decision made based upon the way that our neurones connect and change based on experiences.
I am fully open to being wrong however. I also suggest that the OP take away the 'religion' from the topic title as this discussion seems to be more focused on free will than religion.
OK. Fair enough. So what's the problem? What is the inconvinience of living like that? What is the problem with not fully controlling oneself because of what was explained in the OP, and living alongside an infinite amount of illusions? What's wrong with religion abusing this? I don't see any real problem arising from this debate, honestly. Now I'll go play SC2... Oh wait, it isn't actually me playing. So what? I really don't care.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
and I dont understand why someone has to bring up religion all the time. Religion is no answer, religion is an option. If some more understood this then we could stop lots of these childish religion yes/no discussions.
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is.
You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
You state it as if it is a fact.
The two cannot be distinguished, that is why people keep discussing it.
First of all, i don't really know what you mean by 'the two' Second of all, if they cannot be destinguished, then we both talk about the same we just call it differently. My question to skilledblob is then: do you believe in an external force which can manipulate particles in the brain, which is not influenced by the universe?
i have no free will, if i decide to do (or not to do) something it is a cumulation of my acquired experiences in life. That unfortunately does not relieve me of being responsible for what i do.
Are you telling me that I don't have control over my own actions? If what you say is true, then I would define it as "fate". I don't believe in fate, though I can't prove that it doesn't exist. But I'd rather think that the world is unpredictable because it's more fun that way.
in most cases i believe we have free will, although i have never heard anyone who seems to truly understand consciousness from a physiological standpoint and i don't think that science can explain how we are able to make those decisions and influence the actions of our bodies and minds..
having said that, i think that when a mod is confronted with a thread such as this, they are pre-determined to close it.
Our current knowledge (the fun starts here already) of the brain and physics suggests that our actions are predetermined. There is no evidence of a "soul" or anything that doesn't obey physical laws.
This only contradicts free will in some definitions.
If you however interpret free will as the uniqueness of each human and thus the "ability" (and right) to act and react differently than other humans, there is no contradiction.
I suppose when you look at it that way, yes everything that you do and think is just chemical reacting with each other and causing you to perceive and react to everything there is. Slightly depressing thought, knowing that really you are pretty basic. With the most complex algorithm in the universe, it would probably be possible to predict everything happening in the future and thereby destroying free will.
That being said, I think the fact that we as humans have the ability to realize this is very significant and amazing.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The above is an anachronistic understanding of religion, theology, and theodicy.
On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote: The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will.
It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works.
Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles.
I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG.
how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
Free will is real. But I dont think we have absolute freewill all the time. We do simply as in Skilledbob's example of moving your leg. However I believe that your free will can be influenced by your hormones and desires of your body/subconscious. You might think the following a silly example, but when you're very hungry and you walk past your favourite fast-food place the urge to buy amplifies cause your subconscious wants it. Perhaps a more serious example was an article I read in new scientist years ago about a man who had paedophilic tendencies and was diagnosed with brain cancer. They cut out the tumour and his paedophilic urges went away and he was pleased. But then those urges returned and it turned out the tumour had returned.
Religion is fictional so there is nothing to debate.
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.
On March 05 2012 22:17 CyDe wrote: I suppose when you look at it that way, yes everything that you do and think is just chemical reacting with each other and causing you to perceive and react to everything there is. Slightly depressing thought, knowing that really you are pretty basic. With the most complex algorithm in the universe, it would probably be possible to predict everything happening in the future and thereby destroying free will.
That being said, I think the fact that we as humans have the ability to realize this is very significant and amazing.
Lets say that we predict what will happen. Like someone calculates that I will go for a vacation in Korea, but since someone told me, I chose not to go just to defy the logic. Then I broke the law of the universe?
@ Kerpal, I think that responsibility is very practical, specially when you see the human as an organism who likes to be in controll of things.(which is the reason why whe punish and have justice in the first place) This does not mean that that this is an essential element of the universe, but maybe it is essential however, for a society.
people have free will until someone figures out how to predict /manipulate everything( not any time soon ) sadly in the wider scale everyone is very impressionable and uses there will to copy/imitate/follow others even if they don't know their doing it
so you are correct... but in a way that doesn't matter? as even if our actions could be predicted ahead of time by analyzing every little interaction showing things are predetermined ... theres still 'quantum theory'?? ( oh noes?)
Randomness is inherent to the modern theories (quantium physics etc...). As long as we don't understand what causes this randomness, anyone is free to call it "god's will" or anything, so I don't think you have a very good point.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
To be fair (I think) we don't really *know* how the brain works, but this is probably the best hypothesis so far. I just don't agree with viewing this as a fact until we actually know the details of what the electrical/chemical equivalent of a thought is, or can demonstrate it to a satisfactory degree.
The determinism-based view of the universe, while it seems consistent with our experimental knowledge, also runs into problems if you go back far enough. For instance, if time was created during the big bang, then how exactly could there have been a cause for it if there is no before and after? If there is some sort of higher-order determinism that works beyond time, then wouldn't it necessarily have to go backwards an infinite number of steps? Where would be the beginning of this? There must be something missing in the equation. Because I know the idea of a sudden beginning is just as perplexing as an infinite series of events.
Anyways maybe there's a level of order above that which is obvious to us. I know its vague and can sound like mystical nonsense, but fundamentally we should keep our options open. But for now I think the best view of life has to be determinism.
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.
On March 05 2012 22:12 Cirqueenflex wrote: i have no free will, if i decide to do (or not to do) something it is a cumulation of my acquired experiences in life. That unfortunately does not relieve me of being responsible for what i do.
This does not contradict free will in the least?
You get input --> you process it --> you react. Naturally you will pick the , to your knowledge, reaction which brings you the closest to your desired result.
This is not contradicting free will in the least? It's just not being a psychopath constantly rolling dice instead of acting accroding to his experiences or knowledge.
@ Knatt, no because how you sayit now, the "predictor" is not included in the prediction. This is not a good way to predict something in general. So in your model of the universe, the 'model' and thereby all it's effects has to be included in the same model... This cannot be done, and thus such a model cannot be made.
On March 05 2012 22:12 knatt wrote: Are you telling me that I don't have control over my own actions? If what you say is true, then I would define it as "fate". I don't believe in fate, though I can't prove that it doesn't exist. But I'd rather think that the world is unpredictable because it's more fun that way.
The world is unpredictable because there are trillions of trillions of what we believe are possible outcomes, based on trillions and trillions of variables. It is likely for this reason, it feels as if free will exists.
But, for all intents and purposes of living life, the universe works "as if" free will exists.
This topic has been discussed to death so often, with the simple result that the human mind is not capable of answering the question of free will. Why create a thread about it?
It is an interesting topic nonetheless, I'm really looking forward to my lectures and seminars about it.
On March 05 2012 22:17 CyDe wrote: I suppose when you look at it that way, yes everything that you do and think is just chemical reacting with each other and causing you to perceive and react to everything there is. Slightly depressing thought, knowing that really you are pretty basic. With the most complex algorithm in the universe, it would probably be possible to predict everything happening in the future and thereby destroying free will.
That being said, I think the fact that we as humans have the ability to realize this is very significant and amazing.
Lets say that we predict what will happen. Like someone calculates that I will go for a vacation in Korea, but since someone told me, I chose not to go just to defy the logic. Then I broke the law of the universe?
The calculation would already be predetermined. Unless you're calculating with a quantum computer, I guess (you couldn't calculate such things with a digital computer anyways). Then you should have a real paradox.
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?)
On March 05 2012 22:12 knatt wrote: Are you telling me that I don't have control over my own actions? If what you say is true, then I would define it as "fate". I don't believe in fate, though I can't prove that it doesn't exist. But I'd rather think that the world is unpredictable because it's more fun that way.
The world is unpredictable because there are trillions of trillions of what we believe are possible outcomes, based on trillions and trillions of variables. It is likely for this reason, it feels as if free will exists.
But, for all intents and purposes of living life, the universe works "as if" free will exists.
It works a little like a computer. Computers cannot generate truly random numbers, but they can generate numbers in such a complex fashion that they become essentially random.
You could flip a coin, and if you had all the information in the universe, you could already know the outcome. But the universe is too complex.
To be fair (I think) we don't really *know* how the brain works
It's more than fair. Consciousness is not understood at all past descriptions of behavior and physical indicators, which is why people arguing against free will have to resort to simplistic reductionist arguments about physical processes in order to skip over that particular problem. They can't explain it, so they reduce it to a process that they can explain.
On March 05 2012 22:27 Timmsh wrote: @ Knatt, no because how you sayit now, the "predictor" is not included in the prediction. This is not a good way to predict something in general. So in your model of the universe, the 'model' and thereby all it's effects has to be included in the same model... This cannot be done, and thus such a model cannot be made.
I know that such a model cannot be made. But since it cannot be made then the future cannot be predicted, or atleast it cannot be understood because it would cause a paradox. Therefore I would like to think that free will exists.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
To be fair (I think) we don't really *know* how the brain works, but this is probably the best hypothesis so far. I just don't agree with viewing this as a fact until we actually know the details of what the electrical/chemical equivalent of a thought is, or can demonstrate it to a satisfactory degree.
The determinism-based view of the universe, while it seems consistent with our experimental knowledge, also runs into problems if you go back far enough. For instance, if time was created during the big bang, then how exactly could there have been a cause for it if there is no before and after? If there is some sort of higher-order determinism that works beyond time, then wouldn't it necessarily have to go backwards an infinite number of steps? Where would be the beginning of this? There must be something missing in the equation. Because I know the idea of a sudden beginning is just as perplexing as an infinite series of events.
Anyways maybe there's a level of order above that which is obvious to us. I know its vague and can sound like mystical nonsense, but fundamentally we should keep our options open. But for now I think the best view of life has to be determinism.
About the brain, are you suggesting that the brain is some special region of spacetime, whereby our usual understanding that all actions and motions are the aggregate of the motion of elementary particles, falls apart? This sounds like a extraordinary claim even when compared to the claim that free will does not exist.
As for the origin of the universe. It really isn't relevant to the question here, but there are theories whereby a universe can be spontaneously created where no space existed before.
On March 05 2012 22:17 CyDe wrote: I suppose when you look at it that way, yes everything that you do and think is just chemical reacting with each other and causing you to perceive and react to everything there is. Slightly depressing thought, knowing that really you are pretty basic. With the most complex algorithm in the universe, it would probably be possible to predict everything happening in the future and thereby destroying free will.
That being said, I think the fact that we as humans have the ability to realize this is very significant and amazing.
Lets say that we predict what will happen. Like someone calculates that I will go for a vacation in Korea, but since someone told me, I chose not to go just to defy the logic. Then I broke the law of the universe?
Yes, that would be a problem, but this algorithm is completely theoretical and even if it did exist a human would by no means be able to understand it.
And as many other people have mentioned, the act of knowing the future changes the future; ergo, as soon as you know the future, you don't.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The above is an anachronistic understanding of religion, theology, and theodicy.
If God exists, then why is there evil in the world?
quantum mechanics all particles at its most elemental degree have a certain amount of randomness in it, and the collective randomness makes it impossible to accurately capture the state of a system and use classical physics to predict future actions
On March 05 2012 22:24 Geiko wrote: Randomness is inherent to the modern theories (quantium physics etc...). As long as we don't understand what causes this randomness, anyone is free to call it "god's will" or anything, so I don't think you have a very good point.
If your thoughts and actions are determined by a random number generator, they would still not be free.
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).
On March 05 2012 22:37 Kupon3ss wrote: quantum mechanics all particles at its most elemental degree have a certain amount of randomness in it, and the collective randomness makes it impossible to accurately capture the state of a system and use classical physics to predict future actions
accurate is a bad word there, it implies that there's something to be known, rather the system is not in any specific state, which is why we can't know it.
On March 05 2012 22:37 Kupon3ss wrote: quantum mechanics all particles at its most elemental degree have a certain amount of randomness in it, and the collective randomness makes it impossible to accurately capture the state of a system and use classical physics to predict future actions
That only applies at the level of elementary particles.
It essentially doesn't apply in the macro level, if so we wouldn't be able to launch rockets and space probes plotted with Newton's Laws or Relativity.
But even if the universe is completely random, it would still not be free.
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.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The above is an anachronistic understanding of religion, theology, and theodicy.
If God exists, then why is there evil in the world?
On March 05 2012 22:10 Skilledblob wrote: and I dont understand why someone has to bring up religion all the time. Religion is no answer, religion is an option. If some more understood this then we could stop lots of these childish religion yes/no discussions.
there's no evidence of god and there is no conclusive evidence to your theory that's why it's a theory.
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.
About determinism - just to interject a physicist's point of view in this, the motion of atoms is non-deterministic - for a start one cannot know the position and momenta of a particle to an error smaller than the uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle One can only predict the probabilities of certain actions happening - for instance the chemical reactions in the brain might happen, or they might not - you can't predict which one it will be, only the probability of each outcome. Even in the classical limit, the behaviour of systems involving many variables (that depend on each other) becomes impossible to accurately predict, with small errors in measurement making long term predictions impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Of course stuff being random doesn't lend itself to free will either.
@hypercube - thanks, that Libet experiment was an interesting read. So when I cheese, my brain randomly decides to cheese (with environmental factors affecting the probabilities) and then makes up excuses for it? It's not my fault guys! :p
Sounds like an interesting book though, I'll have to read it.
On March 05 2012 22:44 RoberP wrote: About determinism - just to interject a physicist's point of view in this, the motion of atoms is non-deterministic - for a start one cannot know the position and momenta of a particle to an error smaller than the uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle One can only predict the probabilities of certain actions happening - for instance the chemical reactions in the brain might happen, or they might not - you can't predict which one it will be, only the probability of each outcome. Even in the classical limit, the behaviour of systems involving many variables (that depend on each other) becomes impossible to accurately predict, with small errors in measurement making long term predictions impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Of course stuff being random doesn't lend itself to free will either.
@hypercube - thanks, that Libet experiment was an interesting read. So when I cheese, my brain randomly decides to cheese (with environmental factors affecting the probabilities) and then makes up excuses for it? It's not my fault guys! :p
Sounds like an interesting book though, I'll have to read it.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
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. It would be voodoo to claim you can will the random quantum fluctuations of elementary particles, which are fundamentally unpredictable.
3. If your actions are determined by God's will, then they are not determined by free will.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
Can someone clarify?
The world works "as if" free will existed. I would not recommend any changes to criminal justice as a result of disbelieving free will. I have certain views on criminal justice, but they are completely unrelated to whether or not I believe in free will.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
Can someone clarify?
I still don't really have an opinion on all of this, but just through thinking for a little bit, I would say yes, theoretically. If you were to have all the data, ALL of the data, about this person. Everything on every person they met, and everywhere they have been, and everything they have touched etc, some omniscient being would be able to tell what a potential criminal would do before they do.
I mean, like you mentioned, I think that everything we do is a product of chemical reactions in the brain. Memories, insecurities, fears, perceptions... all the things that would contribute to a crime can be traced. Theoretically, of course.
However, I think that one would not be able to figure someone out someone by looking at them solely. You would also have to understand fully their environment and the things that occur to them out of their control (someone might be angry and then, out of their control, someone cuts them off in traffic... then they just snap and attack them).
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.
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.
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.
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 22:46 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.
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 ?
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 22:41 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 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 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 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.
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.
I like that ending statement. Very ambiguous, and probably the most true thing written yet, even though many people would consider free will to be a binary truth.
The problem I have with your interpretation is that it suggests we cannot be unaware (sorry double negative) of our forced actions. What I am imagining is that out actions are in a sphere, and our consciousness is engulfing that sphere. If there was to be no free will, then there would be another sphere around the consciousness one; it would control the mind, and that would control the actions. The way you are looking at it, if I am correct, is that the consciousness sphere is separate; it can observe the determination sphere controlling the action sphere, and watch in helplessness. If there was determination, I don't think it would work this way.
Sorry for the weird ass description, I have an incredibly visual mind, and that is hard as hell to convey in words. I can rephrase if you are interested.
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.
I understand that. What I am saying is that in the bigger picture the chances of rolling 10 sixes in a row is 1/60,466,176. Of course the following roll is exactly the same in probability as the previous, but in connection to each other, the chances change as the tests continue.
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.
Your argument is confusing.
You claim that everything is merely the interaction of particles, and that there is no choice.
This shows that you do not believe in free will, or at least the free will which I've been talking about.
Yet you then claim that free will is a real as consciousness.
This seems to be my argument that free will appears to exist, and that we live as if we had free will. Our current understanding of consciousness, is that it is an experience that is related to the biochemical reactions in the brain. Like everything in the universe, it is merely caused by the motion of particles following certain physical laws.
On March 05 2012 22:44 RoberP wrote:@hypercube - thanks, that Libet experiment was an interesting read. So when I cheese, my brain randomly decides to cheese (with environmental factors affecting the probabilities) and then makes up excuses for it? It's not my fault guys! :p
Sounds like an interesting book though, I'll have to read it.
Haha, not sure about that. If you decided to cheese well before the game than you had enough time to consciouly override the previous unconscious decision. Although you might not be inclined to as you probably falsely remember it to be a conscious choice.
Now whether that conscious override is really your decision or simply your mind's trick of rationalizing a decision that was made before you were consciously aware of it is another question.
In any case even if conscious decisions exist and not all of them are a posteriori rationaliztions we still don't know if they are manifestation of free will (in the philosophical sense) or just the consequence of a physical process.
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
Free will exist. Simple choice we have everyday within everything. Natures law apply for everything, but as for DNA and inherent DNA. It might be more likely that I become an alcoholic then you. But I still have the free will of stretching my hand and grab it or not.
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.
I understand that. What I am saying is that in the bigger picture the chances of rolling 10 sixes in a row is 1/60,466,176. Of course the following roll is exactly the same in probability as the previous, but in connection to each other, the chances change as the tests continue.
I'm not sure what chance you're talking about changes.
The chance of rolling 6 in the next go is still 1/6. However, for example, the chance of rolling at least 1 six in n rolls changes as n changes.
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 op says that there's no free will and as he explained it it's totally agreeable. But I think as long as I have the free choice between e.g. standing up or staying seated right now and I think I can choose freely then I think I do have free will. Of course you can't find out if it is free will or it has to be like that but as long as I feel I can choose it's free will for me.
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.
I understand that. What I am saying is that in the bigger picture the chances of rolling 10 sixes in a row is 1/60,466,176. Of course the following roll is exactly the same in probability as the previous, but in connection to each other, the chances change as the tests continue.
I'm not sure what chance you're talking about changes.
The chance of rolling 6 in the next go is still 1/6. However, for example, the chance of rolling at least 1 six in n rolls changes as n changes.
I mean that there is a difference in the chances of rolling a six five times in a row and eight times in a row.
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.
On March 05 2012 23:35 k3m4 wrote: the op says that there's no free will and as he explained it it's totally agreeable. But I think as long as I have the free choice between e.g. standing up or staying seated right now and I think I can choose freely then I think I do have free will. Of course you can't find out if it is free will or it has to be like that but as long as I feel I can choose it's free will for me.
I like to adopt this philosophy for a lot of theoretical existential possibilities. Like people say, "Oh, what if the world is really a dream, woah, dude... this reality isn't real man." (yeah I dramatized them a lot)
My response tends to be, "Well, if it is, it is my reality. Until I found out for certain that this world I know is simply a dream, it doesn't really affect me in any way." It's like... tangible apathy. Or something.
Although I guess it doesn't stop it from being very interesting to discuss.
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. Free will is not SOLEY a product of religion. It also has many foundation is physics, biolody, neuroscience... and the list goes on. These are thing separate from philosophy. That is the point I'm trying to explain to you.
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!
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 a fundamental principle 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.
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.
A universe without free will might be inconsistent with some or even a majority of religious worldviews. It is without a doubt, however, inconsistent with any worldview that assumes rationality. The whole idea that we choose our beliefs based on a careful assessment of available evidence? That seems right out the window from the word "choose" onward.
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'.
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!
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
You haven't made much of an attempt to show how free will is compatible with science.
If all you intended to do was to namedrop "stochastic" and link to articles on philosophy, then there's really no point, as the former is a debunked argument and the latter isn't science.
It's sad that some people get so defensive and ironic when they're faced with the idea that free will doesn't exist. If those people bothered to try to understand the reasoning behind the claim, maybe they'd learn something.
hmm it seems to me many people are confusing cause and effect with fate? im in no manner a philosopher, but i imagine you have to agree on a definition of what is fate/determinism and what is "free-will". At least most everyone believes that free will or the illusion of free will is necessary for the human existence. Else you open up the can of worms about court of law and punishment and pre-crime and preventing pre-crime and all that.
another way I would approach this type of argument is to say, ok say i'm right, or you're right, what changes? Well clearly if i believe in free will i will look both ways to cross the road. But at the same time, a determinism would argue for the same action. So it seems to me the determinism position always cedes to the free will position everything and every concrete behavior argument, with exception to the beginning "free will" part.
So i'm never quite sure how to argue about freewill vs determinism. since ... well theres no real consequences or way to convince the other side.
As a free will believer, i'm perfectly willing to reverse my position if i loose control of my body one day and it decides to do a little dance on its own, after i hear a voice from the sky commanding me to. Obviously this is a ridiculous and highly improbable scenario, but thats where my bottom line is. Cross that and i'm a believer.
That said, i dont see what the bottom line for a determinist would be, therefore i find it very hard to argue and take that position seriously.
On March 06 2012 00:15 Uncultured wrote: Yep. Done trying. Talking to a brick wall.
You haven't made much of an attempt to show how free will is compatible with science.
If all you intended to do was to namedrop "stochastic" and link to articles on philosophy, then there's really no point, as the former is a debunked argument and the latter isn't science.
I'd love to see you cite some sources that suggest Stochastic Processes as debunked.... I wonder if you can understand the absurdity of such a notion.
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.
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.
I'm glad you brought up quantum mechanics, it is the greatest argument for free will in my opinion. When thinking about this subject a while ago, that exact argument was the one thing keeping me from rejecting free will. However it is flawed in its explanation of free will. Yes, we cannot know the position and momentum of a particle and thus have to rely on probabilities, which lead to consequences such as quantum tunneling. This suggests that the laws that rule over the processes in our brain are not strict. But when I call them strict laws, I am including quantum mechanics here. Just because the brain follows processes which may have a completely random element does not mean we have free will. Free will would imply that we have control over this random element. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the human brain can have an influence over random events.
When using arguments for free will that involve random elements such as quantum mechanics, you must also give reason for the brain to control these random elements. It will be interesting to see how future developments in quantum mechanics could alter this viewpoint.
I'm no physicist, but I know that if I want to lift my leg, I lift my leg. If I want to lift my leg 1,000 times, I do it until it hurts too much and I want to stop. Do I physically control the electrical impulses that cause my leg to move? No, not directly. But unless I have a movement disorder or neurological condition, it moves when I tell it to. Same goes for any of the other "choices" I make every day.
Does free will need to be "sorcery" in order to be free will? Seems kind of egocentric to assert that free will is only such if we are actually manipulating the laws of physics.
Regardless, what is the point of discussing it? If we can't do anything about it, and the way we operate our societies is based on the assumption that we do have free will, what can be gained from this discussion?
On March 06 2012 00:15 Uncultured wrote: Yep. Done trying. Talking to a brick wall.
You haven't made much of an attempt to show how free will is compatible with science.
If all you intended to do was to namedrop "stochastic" and link to articles on philosophy, then there's really no point, as the former is a debunked argument and the latter isn't science.
I'd love to see you cite some sources that suggest Stochastic Processes as debunked.... I wonder if you can understand the absurdity of such a notion.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists. Probably the 8th time I've said it in this thread, without anyone offering a counterargument.
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]
I always liked Compatibilism and the idea that determinism and free will are actually not mutually exclusive.
This specific argument for determinism seems entirely dependent on an idealized scientific holism, which quite frankly, probably isn't going to ever happen. Take away that assumption and it looks like the entire argument falls apart aside from being piece of metaphysical speculation filled with assumptions that needed scientific holism to be more than such.
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.
Do you really? Why call people dogmatic then? Under the assumption of no free will everyone is dogmatic. You say "free will [...] is abused to justify the existence of evil." But if there's no free will there's no moral basis to condemn this behaviour.
Your statement has the structure: "There's no free will. Therefore you should stop using using it as an excuse." Or even more simply: "There's no free will. I demand that you stop what you are doing." Hope you see the absurdity in that.
On March 06 2012 00:32 koreasilver wrote: Is Harris even introducing any new ideas in this? Or this is just another pop book.
Pop book.
I'd be very surprise to hear of any new developments in this area.
The End of Faith has a very revealing analysis of torture and subjectivity.
But overall it is polemic.
Yeah, I've been reading literature on this topic for a little while and there was basically nothing conclusive. I doubt I would even touch this book since it's just going to be a bad version of academic literature that leads to nowhere.
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.
Do you really? Why call people dogmatic then? Under the assumption of no free will everyone is dogmatic. You say "free will [...] is abused to justify the existence of evil." But if there's no free will there's no moral basis to condemn this behaviour.
Your statement has the structure: "There's no free will. Therefore you should stop using using it as an excuse." Or even more simply: "There's no free will. I demand that you stop what you are doing." Hope you see the absurdity in that.
As I've said, the universe works as if it had free will. People are sometimes convinced by compelling arguments, although this is very unlikely amongst those who accept religious dogma.
okay first of all i think this sam harris guy is just riding the coat tails of daniel dennett's series of books about consciousness, particularly 'freedom evolves' which is a great book on the subject. i think dennett successfully elaborate the western perspective on the impossibility of free will because of its incompatibility with empiricism and the physical laws of the universe. dennett argues that the traditional notion of 'free will' is just a mistake of linguistics (i'm not sure he really says this but i think it's what he intends)
pretty much it's impossible to be 'free' in the sense of having a mind independent from the rest of the universe because the universe and the brain are made of matter and stuff that in dennett's theory of empiricism probably behaves like matter that we're aware of. so that's possibly an error in the theory that there's matter and field mechanics that we either don't know about or if we do know about their existence we don't know how they operate which means that we can't be said to know of their existence because we can't successfully define what they are unless we have some knowledge of how they operate.
in dennett's conceptualization (although he was not the first to 'espouse' this perspective he is probably one of the best people in terms of putting it in a way that people makes sense), anyway in the conceptualization presented in dennett's book about the evolution of freedom; he says that the matter of the universe comprises the universe without much reference to other possible stuff in the universe which doesn't operate like the matter we're familiar with and which isn't necessarily quantum stuff either. anyway to my knowledge there's no successful attempt to merge classic newtonian physics or whatever or way it's einsteinian physics; anyway there's no way to merge einsteinian newtonian stuff with quantum mechanics stuff that we are successfully mathemateizing in equational stuff
so, that being the case i think there's a pretty big lapse or gap in our knowledge of the physics stuff that we know about (much less the stuff that we don't know about); so since there's no successful formulation of 'microgravity' or whatever you want to call the merge to newtonian/einsteinian physics (physics of big stuff) with quantum stuff (physics of small stuff) or whatever in simplest terms except for stuff like string theory which is a pipe dream to say the least and probably pretty tough to put into traditional mathematical formulation
so since these gaps in our knowledge of traditional physics stuff from traditional physics matter (einsteinian) to less traditional physics matter (quantum) it's pretty tough to draw any useful conclusions from physics about the nature of free will. but dennett's postulation is also philosophical or of some purely logical abstractness in its nature and he claims that it simply doesn't bear thinking about in the human mind that we could have free will because stuff operates according to known principles of principles that are an extrapolation of principles that we think we understand or in other words principles that about which we have an approximation that a lot of people agree is something like what's in fact the case (if 'fact' here is something that can't change in time; that is that water droplets can't fly upward; alhtough in the minds of some people this is 'in fact' conceivable or possible)
so anyway i guess the way it might be described about the operation of the brain is that we have a brain made of matter and it's not quantum stuff and doesn't invovle other stuff we don't know about. and so since the brain is matter and behaves according to the laws of physics that we use to approximate the operation of the physical matter in the universe, the brain doesn't do free will stuff because our conceptualization of free will is that we aren't simply wind up robots that just oh fuck i left the hose on and my dog's pen is flooding brb
well fuck there was a leak where the hose met the spiggot or whatever and the water is in the drive way in a big puddle and then there's a veritable lake in the dog's pen flowing out into the car parking area and even into some of the plants. some guys are gonna be removing some extra trees and an extra random fence that's blocking my view of another fence that's between my house and the forest and stuff that's behind my house but unfortunately some damn people bought some of the land back behind my house where i used to enjoy sauntering in the forest and they built a house there and i hate them
i told my parents to buy that lot and they didn't because they're bastards and it's on the flood plane so maybe that's why they thought no one would build there but someone always does something to inconvenience me so of course they're gonna go putting buildings in my favorite forest area and they even there was a secret path like a road or something and it got all messed up and now it's just like there's a house on one side and there's a little forest that's not even worthy of being called a forest on the other and you still can't see the creek so that's okay but i can't feel like i'm adventuring into the forest now that they've build a house there and it's just like walking into suburbia instead of my favorite forest area
so our original conception of free will is that there's some mysterious force or something that is our 'mind' which is separate from our brain in some way that isn't encapsulated in traditional physics, and dennett is of a different opinion that the brain is generates the mind and that nothign else generates the mind like the environment has no impact on the behavior of the brain and that the brain is just a closed circuit or something that doesn't make reference to the body or the environment in which the body is at a time and that the brain is what generates the mind to the exclusion of everything else and that there's nothing in the brain that we don't understand or can't conceive of according to traditional western empiricism that doesn't know everything about physics or anything 'real' about physics that isn't some approximation that's mathematized according to math that approximates stuff that we observe in a very particular way that divorces all phenomena from everything else to make things simple and models comprehensible or mathematizable according to traditional equation stuff
and to be honest i'm not sure that's how things work because i think that there's a lot of interrelationships that determine the course that matter takes and that you can't just say well this is an equation for force or this is an equation for motion and this is an equation for impulse and that we can just from this deduce that the brain operates in this way and that the brain operating in this way implies that the mind generates this way and that leads me to be of the opinion that free will isn't real
my own opinion is that there are some gaps in our knowledge merging empirical science with mathematics to give an accurate account of physical phenomena that we observe with imperfect tools. and then our need to compartmentalize each element or each event into something that can be summarized in an equation that approximates the behavior that we observe; i think that tendency creates what we acknowledge to be the necessary simplifications required to create a 'model' in the traditional sense; although one of my favorite economics lines is that "we have a perfect model and that model is the world"
or something like that and that to make sense of the owrld we simplify the world and then we draw conclusions so to speak about what we see in our simplification which is like to be interrepted according to evolved tendencies (dispositions that are a combination of genetic and environemntal in nature) and that those predispositions 'color' our perception in a 'particular' way so that we see the world in a way that makes sense to us. and then we mathematice what we see according to math that exists at the time of our conceiving our thought and so the thought of a time on a subject is very much subjective despite the goal of objectivity and is so much the product of the person's exposure to knowledge and information and his innate propensities or predilections; so it's pretty tough to draw objective unequivocal and conclusions without biases because of these factors
and then there's the possibility of error and also the fact that we don't know everything and so to extrapolate conclusions that are as poignant like the conclusion that there is no free will which is something that i'm sure dennett is of the opinion to be true because it's something he's spent a lot of time in thought about and then sam harris writes a summary of his work in a sensationalist way and isn't this the same guy who coat tails richard dawkins and the god delusion and just does all of it to make money or something like that. so anyway i would take what he says with a grain of salt and if i wanted a real well-developed opinion and argumentation on the subjects of evolution and atheism and free will i'd probably turn to the authors like richard dawkins and daniel dennett who give a more development and sincere account without sensationalist bias to make money (even if they have their agendas they are at least sincere in their effort and truly believe what they're writing about and do their best to give an account of the stuff they're talking about)
and i'm sure sam harris isn't a bad sort of guy but i get the impressoin he's motivated other than the true knowledge he writes about and he's probably misleading a lot of people on essential subjects and 'kowtowing' disturbing conclusions that cause a lot of strife and dissent among people who are quite 'understandably' alarmed about authority figures pronouncing that there is no such thing as free will which is quite a strong statement and we probably don't in my opinion have the necessary knowledge to make such a proclamation at this time i'll probably write some morre about this stuff in the high thread or something where i think it belongs lol
On March 06 2012 00:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I always liked Compatibilism and the idea that determinism and free will are actually not mutually exclusive.
This specific argument for determinism seems entirely dependent on an idealized scientific holism, which quite frankly, probably isn't going to ever happen. Take away that assumption and it looks like the entire argument falls apart aside from being piece of metaphysical speculation filled with assumptions that needed scientific holism to be more than such.
Compatiblism is semantics. It waters down the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. If the universe is deterministic, I would be a compatiblist by definition.
What is scientific holism, and how does it relate to my argument? My argument is that free will is not consistent with the laws of physics, it's got nothing to do with viewing things as wholes.
On March 06 2012 00:15 Uncultured wrote: Yep. Done trying. Talking to a brick wall.
You haven't made much of an attempt to show how free will is compatible with science.
If all you intended to do was to namedrop "stochastic" and link to articles on philosophy, then there's really no point, as the former is a debunked argument and the latter isn't science.
I'd love to see you cite some sources that suggest Stochastic Processes as debunked.... I wonder if you can understand the absurdity of such a notion.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists. Probably the 8th time I've said it in this thread, without anyone offering a counterargument.
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]
Now you're just going in circles. That very same article proposes a theory for compatabilism to be true, from Stephen Hawking himself. And that's exactly what this all is, theory. You keep citing physics as if this is all pinned down as fact, but even Hawking and Schrodinger both assert that they could be wrong about their beliefs of free will. You have cherry picked that single idea out of a plethora of possibilities and dote on only it, as fact.
You keep trying to make it out like I'm arguing for Free Will, when I'm not. I'm arguing that free will is a possibility, along with determinism, along with both of them working together.
On March 06 2012 00:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I always liked Compatibilism and the idea that determinism and free will are actually not mutually exclusive.
This specific argument for determinism seems entirely dependent on an idealized scientific holism, which quite frankly, probably isn't going to ever happen. Take away that assumption and it looks like the entire argument falls apart aside from being piece of metaphysical speculation filled with assumptions that needed scientific holism to be more than such.
Compatiblism is semantics. It waters down the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. If the universe is deterministic, I would be a compatiblist by definition.
What is scientific holism, and how does it relate to my argument? My argument is that free will is not consistent with the laws of physics, it's got nothing to do with viewing things as wholes.
Can you explain what you mean by "compatibilism is semantics"? Certainly you would agree that in order to determine whether "X exists" one should clear up the meaning of X in the first place. Can you think of any notion of "free will" that would be facilitated by "indeterminism" but not by "determinism" or by "some particles moving unlawfully some of the time" instead of "all particles moving lawfully all of the time" as you seem to imply in your OP? I sure cannot, so I think compatibilism is the only tenable position.
If that is the case however, you seem to fail to give a convincing argument against free will, since no successful argument could be based on any natural laws governing the motion of particles. I think you might need to try another angle then.
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.
Do you really? Why call people dogmatic then? Under the assumption of no free will everyone is dogmatic. You say "free will [...] is abused to justify the existence of evil." But if there's no free will there's no moral basis to condemn this behaviour.
Your statement has the structure: "There's no free will. Therefore you should stop using using it as an excuse." Or even more simply: "There's no free will. I demand that you stop what you are doing." Hope you see the absurdity in that.
As I've said, the universe works as if it had free will. People are sometimes convinced by compelling arguments, although this is very unlikely amongst those who accept religious dogma.
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.
Do you really? Why call people dogmatic then? Under the assumption of no free will everyone is dogmatic. You say "free will [...] is abused to justify the existence of evil." But if there's no free will there's no moral basis to condemn this behaviour.
Your statement has the structure: "There's no free will. Therefore you should stop using using it as an excuse." Or even more simply: "There's no free will. I demand that you stop what you are doing." Hope you see the absurdity in that.
As I've said, the universe works as if it had free will. People are sometimes convinced by compelling arguments, although this is very unlikely amongst those who accept religious dogma.
So the emotionally loaded language and the moral condemnation is just the laws of nature playing themselves out in one part of reality (you) affecting another (the mental state of your readers). I'd still hold that this kind of behaviour is inconsistent with your proffessed beliefs about reality but it would be unfair of me to criticise you for something that you have no controll over.
I could, hoping that this criticism, however unjustified, would cause the behaviour to change, but I have a suspicion it wouldn't.
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.
I presume your almost direct quote means you have read GEB
To elaborate the point: such a machine cannot exist, because self-referential feedback loops "break" computation. The most famous instance of this, is of course, the Halting problem, which was used to show that not everything is decidable.
On March 06 2012 00:23 Tachyon wrote: It's sad that some people get so defensive and ironic when they're faced with the idea that free will doesn't exist. If those people bothered to try to understand the reasoning behind the claim, maybe they'd learn something.
Don't blame them.
They can't do anything about it. No free will and all.
On March 06 2012 00:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I always liked Compatibilism and the idea that determinism and free will are actually not mutually exclusive.
This specific argument for determinism seems entirely dependent on an idealized scientific holism, which quite frankly, probably isn't going to ever happen. Take away that assumption and it looks like the entire argument falls apart aside from being piece of metaphysical speculation filled with assumptions that needed scientific holism to be more than such.
Compatiblism is semantics. It waters down the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. If the universe is deterministic, I would be a compatiblist by definition.
What is scientific holism, and how does it relate to my argument? My argument is that free will is not consistent with the laws of physics, it's got nothing to do with viewing things as wholes.
Determinism rejecting free will is semantics in the same exact way and expects an unrealistic definition of free will, hence why it doesn't exist. Not necessarily though because if you're a deterministic individual who doesn't believe in free will you're not a compatibilist, the definition of compatibilism is that the universe is deterministic but we still have free will.
Scientific holism is the assumption that all science is capable of being unified, eventually we will be able to explain all phenomena in chemistry through pure physics in how particles interact, then biology, and continue to build up until we will eventually be able to explain everything through physics up to the point where human behavior can be mapped out and predicted. It relates extremely well to your argument since it's based on the fact that human behavior can be explained by particle interactions. If they can't be, then your understanding of the laws of the universe which are based on scientific holism won't fit so well anymore (which is more of an assumption than an understanding anyways).
Even if science is holistic (which again, we don't know whether it is or not but it sure as hell isn't right now), it doesn't necessarily follow that the laws of the universe force one to reject free will.
There is no doubt that humanity has always been influenced by history and genetics, that is, most of our decisions are really products of generations and generations of experience and conditioning. I have faith however that there is a quantum of human experience that is above and beyond all these contingencies, one that truly experiences free will, such as when a man chooses to do something is against his interests, something irrational.
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.
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.
Random quantum fluctuations is a long way from free will. Are you saying that these fluctuations can be guided by our free will? If so, then why can't they be predicted.
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?)
Yes, exactly. So first the machine calculates sandwich "A". Then it calculates your response to its response, to make sandwich "B". Then it calculates your response to its response, which is to make sandwich "C". It keeps calculating, and eventually it comes up with a sandwich idea so compelling, that you can't help but make it, even though you are defeating the idea of free will. On the bright side, you get an awesome sandwich.
I am skeptical on either side of this issue, given the sheer ammount we do not know about our universe.
Physicalism certainly does seem to be the most consistent with currently understood and accepted scientific advances, so I'd lean more strongly towards that.
Just because there seems to be a reason for everything doesn't imply wether our world is deterministic or not. You can fabricate a reason for an event but this doesn't mean that it actually happened for this reason.
Have you ever annoyed someone by continuing to ask them "Why?" until they rage? You can always continue asking for a reason, then for the reason of the reason etc. This either leads to an infinite loop if there is a reason for everything or it stops if there is no reason for something. However, when you reach the point, when you are unable to name the reason for something, you can't say wether there actually is a reason for it or not, you just don't know.
The point I am trying to make with this is, that due to our limited knowledge, we can't decide wether everything is truely deterministic or not, therefore you can't rule out free will, no matter how hard you try. You can assume, that everything is deterministic, but you don't know.
So far I read only the (very short) chapter on free will in my copy of the Moral Landscape.
That is a point where Sam Harris actually changed a belief of mine. After thinking about it, I agree that the philosophical concept of free will doesn't make sense.
It doesn't mean the world is deterministic. It doesn't mean a man is not responsible for his actions. I just means, there is no free will in the sense that we author our choices.
On March 06 2012 01:07 Hypertension wrote:Yes, exactly. So first the machine calculates sandwich "A". Then it calculates your response to its response, to make sandwich "B". Then it calculates your response to its response, which is to make sandwich "C". It keeps calculating, and eventually it comes up with a sandwich idea so compelling, that you can't help but make it, even though you are defeating the idea of free will. On the bright side, you get an awesome sandwich.
Which is exactly the way Philip K. Dick wrote minority report : There are 3 precogs, 2 out of 3 predict John Anderton will be a murderer. First one predicts he will be framed and will kill in reaction to a false situation. Second one predicts he will know of the first prediction and make an inquiry, thus not killing. Third one predicts that upon descovering the contradictory report, he will make the decision to kill in order to end the system. In the end he has no free will, but a good sandwich.
Note that the movie describes the opposite conclusion: He knows he is framed, he knows he has been foretold to kill, but the final choice remains his and he is free not to. The system ends because his choice not to kill proves free will still exists and may contradict the expected result.
I like the multiple universe solution more though. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having a non deterministic universe where all alternatives do actually occur, spawning each its own universe sounds fun. I am free to make any choice and I do, I did both move and stay still.
Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
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.
I presume your almost direct quote means you have read GEB
To elaborate the point: such a machine cannot exist, because self-referential feedback loops "break" computation. The most famous instance of this, is of course, the Halting problem, which was used to show that not everything is decidable.
Yup.The impossibility of such a computer doesn't show that the magical kind of free will must exist or that determinism is false; it just shows that the premise that determinism implies the possibility of a universal prediction computer is false.
To show how little it has to do with free will, consider the fact that it poses just as much of a problem for a simple robot designed to eat a sandwich when and only when the computer predicts otherwise. Of course, a third computer could predict whichever prediction the first makes and also the robot's reaction to it, but there'd be some other record that would break it.
On March 06 2012 01:07 Hypertension wrote:Yes, exactly. So first the machine calculates sandwich "A". Then it calculates your response to its response, to make sandwich "B". Then it calculates your response to its response, which is to make sandwich "C". It keeps calculating, and eventually it comes up with a sandwich idea so compelling, that you can't help but make it, even though you are defeating the idea of free will. On the bright side, you get an awesome sandwich.
Which is exactly the way Philip K. Dick wrote minority report : There are 3 precogs, 2 out of 3 predict John Anderton will be a murderer. First one predicts he will be framed and will kill in reaction to a false situation. Second one predicts he will know of the first prediction and make an inquiry, thus not killing. Third one predicts that upon descovering the contradictory report, he will make the decision to kill in order to end the system. In the end he has no free will, but a good sandwich.
Note that the movie describes the opposite conclusion: He knows he is framed, he knows he has been foretold to kill, but the final choice remains his and he is free not to. The system ends because his choice not to kill proves free will still exists and may contradict the expected result.
I like the multiple universe solution more though. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having a non deterministic universe where all alternatives do actually occur, spawning each its own universe sounds fun. I am free to make any choice and I do, I did both move and stay still.
Multiple universes don't give you free will though. You get to make all possible decisions, but they were still pre-determined by the state of the universe prior, not something you get to "choose".
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.
Turing showed us how rationality can arise from mechanistic processes. Such processes only depend on information about the syntax of our thoughts (our token brain states), but modern logic shows how syntax can mirror semantics. As long as the semantically good inferences correspond to appropriate chains of syntax in the causal order, rationality will follow.
Accepting a mechanistic universe causes no problems for our understanding of ourselves as rational and our beliefs as justified.
On March 06 2012 01:16 [F_]aths wrote: So far I read only the (very short) chapter on free will in my copy of the Moral Landscape.
That is a point where Sam Harris actually changed a belief of mine. After thinking about it, I agree that the philosophical concept of free will doesn't make sense.
It doesn't mean the world is deterministic. It doesn't mean a man is not responsible for his actions. I just means, there is no free will in the sense that we author our choices.
Actually if you look at it rationally, what is "you" ? If you consider yourself as some "soul" directing your body then of course there is no free will, but if "you" consider actually what is you and that is your body and brain as a independent whole then free will can be well defined concept.
You are trying to force a mystical definition of free will and then find out that it does not work. Of course the mystical religious free will does not exist, but that does not mean the concept of free will is always empty.
There is something missing from this discussion, and i hate to bring it up because it is kind of 'icky'. I don't want to come across sounding too new age, because i really don't believe in all that stuff. Even Sam Harris has admitted that there is something magical about 'consciousness' (i hate that word). I guess you could call it 'experience' instead but it has the same effect. This has a massive effect on the idea of free will. Can consciousness affect the universe of stuff, or is it a mere viewer of things. Well there is a theory, often put forward by Peter Russell, and others who have turned to metaphysics to try and explain things (maybe a bad move), that consciousness is in everything, to some degree. We have a sort of refined version in ourselves. This theory states that consciousness came first, and the universe grew 'inside' it. In such a universe (which obviously we can't prove) free will could definitely be seen to exist, in fact it is almost required to make it work.
On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote: The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will.
It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works.
Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles.
I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG.
On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote: The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will.
It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works.
Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles.
I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG.
um, Immovable Mover? open a book lol
What ? Can you go into detail what are you actually trying to say ?
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
This OP is surprisingly similar to a post I made a while back. Here's the repost, to add my 2 cents to the discussion:
On November 30 2011 06:50 liberal wrote: As a society we like to cling to this idea that we have free will and choice, instead of simply being products of biology and environment. When someone is totally insane, it makes it clear that their choices aren't really being chosen, so much as dictated by what they ARE. When it is made clear that people don't actually have this thing called "free will," whatever that even means, then we suddenly become aware that punishing people for what they are is not right, because people do not choose what they are anymore than they choose their parents or nation or height. Then we immediately forget what the insane person taught us, and go right back to throwing "sane" people who have "free will" back into prison for life.
Let's ponder how absurd this notion of "free will" is...
Every event that can ever occur in the universe will necessarily fall into one of two categories: Caused or Uncaused. Things which are caused are necessarily determined, that's practically what "caused" means. Things which are not caused are necessarily arbitrary, that's practically what "undetermined" means.
Now what is human behavior? Caused or uncaused? Determined or arbitrary? It has to be one or the other, because what is the alternative? What is this "free will" which is neither caused nor uncaused, neither determined nor arbitrary? It is metaphysical voodoo, philosophical astrology... it is nonsense and a meaningless notion.
Still, we'd rather just "rehabilitate" those we determine to not have free will, and "punish" those we determine who do. That's essentially the difference between the legal definition of sanity and insanity. The notion of "insanity" is simply a means of removing the most obvious examples of determinism dictating human behavior from the rest of humanity, so that we can go on denying it's existence.
On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote: The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will.
It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works.
Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles.
I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG.
um, Immovable Mover? open a book lol
What ? Can you go into detail what are you actually trying to say ?
Is it Aquinas logos or the earlier Aristotle principle?
The thing which I think is even more damning in terms of free will is the idea that people who claim we have free will are saying we are more than the sum of our causes, which to be honest is kind of ridiculous and is never said in other cases, and I would say the only reason people claim that we are free is either due to rhetoric and them not having considered it or the fact that maybe it is just more attractive of a thing to believe.
I think John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" is insightful on freedom though, as politically he is a libertarian but he is a soft determinist when it come to free will arguments.
On March 06 2012 01:35 Hypertension wrote:Multiple universes don't give you free will though. You get to make all possible decisions, but they were still pre-determined by the state of the universe prior, not something you get to "choose".
I don't get your point here. In order for me to have a choice between picking up a ball and walking by, I do need a ball to exist and I need to walk towards that ball.
There are a lot of valid objections to multiverse as a representation of free will, for example the fact that another universe exists where I turned into vapor 10 feet away from the ball and dispersed before ever getting to it, which is not a choice I believe I would make. (I cannot prevent any of the alternatives)
But the definition of the universe at the moment of the choice is a given for any definition of free will. The universe and its state is fully defined and you have in your mind alternatives and their consequences. The question is mainly to know
- if more than one alternative at that point of balance may happen (this is the case in our current physics - if not, free may still exist with another definition)
- if there is something that can be defined as "me" that can select one of the alternatives to happen (which is a matter of faith at some level)
On March 06 2012 00:32 koreasilver wrote: Is Harris even introducing any new ideas in this? Or this is just another pop book.
Pop book.
I'd be very surprise to hear of any new developments in this area.
The End of Faith has a very revealing analysis of torture and subjectivity.
But overall it is polemic.
Yeah, I've been reading literature on this topic for a little while and there was basically nothing conclusive. I doubt I would even touch this book since it's just going to be a bad version of academic literature that leads to nowhere.
Sadly so. I really get irritated by pop philosophy and pop science books that have a tendancy mystify and misrepresent theory.
What irks me even more though is that this thread consists almost purely of people quoting different wikipedia articles at one another.
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.
I presume your almost direct quote means you have read GEB
To elaborate the point: such a machine cannot exist, because self-referential feedback loops "break" computation. The most famous instance of this, is of course, the Halting problem, which was used to show that not everything is decidable.
Hell yeah! Now why don't they make books like THAT anymore!
On March 06 2012 01:35 Hypertension wrote:Multiple universes don't give you free will though. You get to make all possible decisions, but they were still pre-determined by the state of the universe prior, not something you get to "choose".
I don't get your point here. In order for me to have a choice between picking up a ball and walking by, I do need a ball to exist and I need to walk towards that ball.
There are a lot of valid objections to multiverse as a representation of free will, for example the fact that another universe exists where I turned into vapor 10 feet away from the ball and dispersed before ever getting to it, which is not a choice I believe I would make. (I cannot prevent any of the alternatives)
But the definition of the universe prior is a given at the moment of the choice for any definition of free will. The universe is in a given state, fully defined and you have in your mind alternatives and their consequences. The question is mainly to know
- if more than one alternative at that point of balance may happen (this is the case in our current physics - if not, free will may still exist with another definition)
- if there is something that can be defined as "me" that can select one of the alternatives to happen (which is a matter of faith at some level)
Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
On March 06 2012 01:55 jello_biafra wrote: Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself.
This doesn't prove that we do or do not have freewill. It could suggest that we subconsciously make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them.
in my opinion it all comes down to the question: do you believe in a soul or not? if you don't believe in a soul, and you do believe that all actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are caused purely by the brain, then it makes sense to claim that there is no free will for a variety of reasons. if you believe that there is something else, a "you" that is not tied to your physical body, then the idea of free-will is much more likely. it is as simple as that: do you believe in free-will, or do you not? do you believe in a soul, or do you not? it has nothing to do with trying to explain away evil, or other behaviors as those can be explained in other ways (which i am not interested in explaining)
one more point though, is the use of the word "illusion". usually, an illusion requires three things:
1. a being which is perceiving the "fake" 2. a reality behind the "fake" that is being submerged or missed 3. the illusion or "fake" itself.
i suppose in the argument we would be the being that is perceiving the illusion. the illusion is that we make choices, i suppose. then what is the reality behind the illusion? is it that we don't make choices?
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
On March 06 2012 01:55 jello_biafra wrote: Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself.
This doesn't prove that we do or do not have freewill. It could suggest that we subconsciously make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them.
If your decisions are subconscious, then you don't control them, which means you don't have free will...
On March 06 2012 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote: in my opinion it all comes down to the question: do you believe in a soul or not? if you don't believe in a soul, and you do believe that all actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are caused purely by the brain, then it makes sense to claim that there is no free will for a variety of reasons. if you believe that there is something else, a "you" that is not tied to your physical body, then the idea of free-will is much more likely. it is as simple as that: do you believe in free-will, or do you not? do you believe in a soul, or do you not? it has nothing to do with trying to explain away evil, or other behaviors as those can be explained in other ways (which i am not interested in explaining)
one more point though, is the use of the word "illusion". usually, an illusion requires three things:
1. a being which is perceiving the "fake" 2. a reality behind the "fake" that is being submerged or missed 3. the illusion or "fake" itself.
i suppose in the argument we would be the being that is perceiving the illusion. the illusion is that we make choices, i suppose. then what is the reality behind the illusion? is it that we don't make choices?
Peter van Inwagen has an essay about free will where he argues that the problem is metaphysical in nature. That is to say, even in the absence of corporeal substances, the problem of free will exists. It exists for Angels, it exists for God; it is inescapable. Even God's and Angel's have to make some sort of decision, even if it isn't a physical one. To change states, to create the world, to answer prayers, etc. Which follows the basic problem of determinism/indeterminism.
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote: Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
On March 06 2012 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote: in my opinion it all comes down to the question: do you believe in a soul or not? if you don't believe in a soul, and you do believe that all actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are caused purely by the brain, then it makes sense to claim that there is no free will for a variety of reasons. if you believe that there is something else, a "you" that is not tied to your physical body, then the idea of free-will is much more likely. it is as simple as that: do you believe in free-will, or do you not? do you believe in a soul, or do you not? it has nothing to do with trying to explain away evil, or other behaviors as those can be explained in other ways (which i am not interested in explaining)
one more point though, is the use of the word "illusion". usually, an illusion requires three things:
1. a being which is perceiving the "fake" 2. a reality behind the "fake" that is being submerged or missed 3. the illusion or "fake" itself.
i suppose in the argument we would be the being that is perceiving the illusion. the illusion is that we make choices, i suppose. then what is the reality behind the illusion? is it that we don't make choices?
Peter van Inwagen has an essay about free will where he argues that the problem is metaphysical in nature. That is to say, even in the absence of corporeal substances, the problem of free will exists. It exists for Angels, it exists for God; it is inescapable.
i haven't read the essay and am not familiar with any argument saying that it does, so i do not know how to respond to this. i can say that just because someone can argue a thing or doubt a thing does not necessarily make that thing questionable.
It's all laid out a certain way for certain reasons. Otherwise it wouldn't all work. But, We have freewill in certain aspects. But probably we could have a lot more freewill, but we only know so much about the brain. So unlocking more knowledge of the actual thing that gives us consciousness. Would probably allow for more freedom.
It would be like getting a computer upgrade, Not much different. More computer space, speed etc = more freedom.
My 2 cents personal thoughts on this cool topic! =]
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote: Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
Only one is consistent. The one that you will pick. Free will only comes to you a priori - all actions coming up to your particular choice seem to be free. But this is because you lack an a posteori view of it; upon acting, you shall be able to discover the motives of your action that were ultimately determined.
I don't understand all this computer chair philosophy that makes the non-existence of God so evident. Atheism is (or should be) the result of differing epistemologies. It is in no way the 'plain truth' of the world that there is no God. Those, (myself included) who choose to deny Gods existence should do so because they believe it is inconsistent with the way mankind exists to believe in a God, which is to say if we abide by logic and rationality for 99.99% of our understandings of the world (hence the incredibly asinine analogy of the flying spaghetti monster or fairies), then we say it is a superior presumption to say that God doesn't exist than to say that he does. Hume covered all of this in his first enquiry; this understanding isn't new and shouldn't surprise people.
However, belief in God is not logically inconsistent. I don't understand how atheists can get this through their heads. God is a presupposition to no greater a degree than not-God.
I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote: Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
According to the theory that you have free will you are right. However, if you believe determinism, then there aren't multiple options. Only one option is compatible with physics, and that is the thing that happens. Your "choice" was just an illusion created by the molecules in your brain.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote: I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
Not that I understand or can explicate the theory but IIRC a lot of modern philosophers hold that both are possible at the same time.
What I always find funny about such debates is that some people seem quite worried about the consequences of arguing free will does not exist. As if upon making the argument convincingly, people will cease to be able to make any decisions anymore.
It reminds me of some physics debates, where people are seemingly worried that if current theories are disproven, suddenly all sorts of electronics and such will stop working.
I think it's like the idea of randomness, if you have the same seed your random number will always be the same, but that's okay as long as it can resemble true randomness enough. Similarly, given the same exact situation, the decisions someone makes will always be the same(with every atom being equal and such), but since one cannot predict the outcome beforehand, only reason about it afterwards, it's still pretty much the same as free will.
I appreciate the discussions and mentions of philosophers and some theologians who have attempted to deal with such an amazing question.
Personally, I've enjoyed reading theologians such as Augustine or Johnathan Edwards who determine that God is metaphorically related to an Author-Play scenario (this is not a perfect rendition in any way, but sheds some light into a deterministic mindset).
Take Shakespeare for Example in Macbeth. Macbeth kills King Duncan for his own reasons, in his own universe, and his own reality. In the play alone, no one would say Shakespeare made the decision to kill King Duncan, it is unanimous that Macbeth dealt the blow. Yet at the same time, Shakespeare has determined the universe in which the reality occurred. In one sense, the choice was Macbeth's -he killed the King. In another sense, it was determined by Shakespeare that this would occur, yet not faulted for this.
This explanation clearly has flaws, however many deterministic theologians and philosophers could imply and assert this model to exemplify determinism and responsibility and refute the concept of free will.
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. People have an intuitive idea of free will. Maybe it's self-contradictory. Or it's incompatible with determinism. But defining it as something completely different is confusing as hell. edit: But certainly not wrong in the logical sense.
On March 06 2012 02:19 Boblion wrote: Lol that tool is basicly rewording what Schopenhauer and then Nietzsche said a long time ago and i'm sure he won't even credit them lol.
So tired of those Anglo-Saxon pseudo-scientists trying to be philosophers. Bow to the masters !
And Hume before them attempted to undermine the notion of cause necessary to even make sense of free will. There have been many influential contributions here.
In general I'm wary of calls to bow down to German masters...
On March 06 2012 02:11 shinosai wrote: Only one [choice] is consistent. The one that you will pick. Free will only comes to you a priori - all actions coming up to your particular choice seem to be free. But this is because you lack an a posteori view of it; upon acting, you shall be able to discover the motives of your action that were ultimately determined.
This is a valid description of the current biological data on human actions, but it is flawed as an argument for or against freewill in a multiverse model. The main issue is in your first phrase. The multiverse model (or any other model consistent with current quantum physics) implies there are a vast number of consistent outcomes.
That my motives will be apparent upon acting just means I will discover different motives depending on the action I take.
The fact that I cannot go back on the choice that has been made holds and yes, I would not be who I am now if any choice prior had been different, but that is the consequence of free will, not its negation.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote: I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
Not that I understand or can explicate the theory but IIRC a lot of modern philosophers hold that both are possible at the same time.
Even if that were somehow true, neither "determined" nor "undetermined" constitute what anyone would call "free will." I fail to see how the combination of the two could somehow produce free will.
But the concept of free will is purely irrational to begin with.
I don't know if anyone has already picked up on this, but Quantum Mechanics completely shits all over the idea of determinism, because you can't trace it all down to "cause and effect", with every action being the predictable result of all the variables (assuming you know/control the variables).
On March 06 2012 02:11 shinosai wrote: Only one [choice] is consistent. The one that you will pick. Free will only comes to you a priori - all actions coming up to your particular choice seem to be free. But this is because you lack an a posteori view of it; upon acting, you shall be able to discover the motives of your action that were ultimately determined.
This is a valid description of the current biological data on human actions, but it is flawed as an argument for or against freewill in a multiverse model. The main issue is in your first phrase. The multiverse model (or any other model consistent with current quantum physics) implies there are a vast number of consistent outcomes.
That my motives will be apparent upon acting just means I will discover different motives depending on the action I take.
The fact that I cannot go back on the choice that has been made holds and yes, I would not be who I am now if any choice prior had been different, but that is the consequence of free will, not its negation.
The multiverse doesn't save you from determinism. It is simply that the vast number of consistant outcomes occur. You did not get any choice in them happening, they were all predetermined by physics.
excuse my english im not very good at punctuation marks
i am 20 yrs old i dont drink nor smoke , i choose not to be a
drone like so many people. why do we have evil in this world? we gave our world to satan he rules this world, this is his kingdom
long story made short satan hates yahshua (jesus) why should he bow down to a
created being just like him. so he declares that god limits the angels potential and they worship him only in fear .
so god does not destroy satan as that would prove satans point ^^ . u must understand god has nothing but time he is lonely he is the only 1 that lives we are all AI.
so god is like ok lets create lab rats(humans) to prove ur point they shall neither see nor hear me. god told us u eat the apple u die simple as that and so we failed :{ and our world is now satans domain.
so whats with all the other human bones we find. we make a very simple notion that evolution exists ;o. look at sc1 zergling compare to sc2 zergling same creator(blizzard) but it was modified right? god has infinite time on his hands he patchs life constantly he has a million better things to do than watch u . i would believe evolution if there was another species like us. its not evolution but many ages god created just like the 1 we are in an age of testing. what are those ages are for? i do not know why. do we were clothes? if u say that the enviroment did that u are stupid no creature can realise its naked because its normal and we are a damn lustful race so why make clothes? look at ur dog he does not feel any shame. if we really evolved we would be naked. think we were apes then we lost our hair then we realise we are cold?? then
why not regrow our hair? why do humans have to think to get stuff we have always wanted
to fly why not evolve wings? when we were tiny microbes somehow we became fish then we
came out then we get birds omg thats messed up man ye humans must use there brains to get stuff while animals can just evolve? wow amazing
look at our solar system its beautiful look at earth in between 2 inhabitable planets venus(hottest planet due to its surface) and mars. yet earth got a nice forcefield from the sun. god created science to govern the mortal realm. just as the angels(plz these are not women or babies plz dont mock these powerful beings show them respect) must be governed by some other system.
i worship god not because i want to feel safe after death or because im insecure and need god to explain thing we dont know yet. i worship him out of pure respect and i have never been disciplined in life my parents never hit me i just had a great appreciation for gods work its truly amazing look at a tiger look at a cute panda and ask urself can randomness create that? hope this helps some lost soul ^^
the post above me(darkness777) just made my brain hurt. you understand nothing about evolution and have your own convulted thought process that was only taught to you in your church.
now, what do i think about free will? well...there are NO SUCH THING as god-given rights, we have human-given rights in certain counties and that is it. do i have the same free will growing up in USA as i would in Iran? you better damn well think not. everyone in 1st world countries are so god damn lucky they have no idea, and sadly in this world you're way better off being a white male rather than any other combination of races/sexes...
it just so happens that you do at least have somewhat of a free will if you are born in a country such as the USA, UK, France, etc etc etc because generally you can become what you want...but generally not if you're poor either.
On March 06 2012 02:36 darkness777 wrote: excuse my english im not very good at punctuation marks
i am 20 yrs old i dont drink nor smoke , i choose not to be a
drone like so many people. why do we have evil in this world? we gave our world to satan he rules this world, this is his kingdom
long story made short satan hates yahshua (jesus) why should he bow down to a
created being just like him. so he declares that god limits the angels potential and they worship him only in fear .
so god does not destroy satan as that would prove satans point ^^ . u must understand god has nothing but time he is lonely he is the only 1 that lives we are all AI.
so god is like ok lets create lab rats(humans) to prove ur point they shall neither see nor hear me. god told us u eat the apple u die simple as that and so we failed :{ and our world is now satans domain.
so whats with all the other human bones we find. we make a very simple notion that evolution exists ;o. look at sc1 zergling compare to sc2 zergling same creator(blizzard) but it was modified right? god has infinite time on his hands he patchs life constantly he has a million better things to do than watch u . i would believe evolution if there was another species like us. its not evolution but many ages god created just like the 1 we are in an age of testing. what are those ages are for? i do not know why. do we were clothes? if u say that the enviroment did that u are stupid no creature can realise its naked because its normal and we are a damn lustful race so why make clothes? look at ur dog he does not feel any shame. if we really evolved we would be naked. think we were apes then we lost our hair then we realise we are cold?? then
why not regrow our hair? why do humans have to think to get stuff we have always wanted
to fly why not evolve wings? when we were tiny microbes somehow we became fish then we
came out then we get birds omg thats messed up man ye humans must use there brains to get stuff while animals can just evolve? wow amazing
look at our solar system its beautiful look at earth in between 2 inhabitable planets venus(hottest planet due to its surface) and mars. yet earth got a nice forcefield from the sun. god created science to govern the mortal realm. just as the angels(plz these are not women or babies plz dont mock these powerful beings show them respect) must be governed by some other system.
i worship god not because i want to feel safe after death or because im insecure and need god to explain thing we dont know yet. i worship him out of pure respect and i have never been disciplined in life my parents never hit me i just had a great appreciation for gods work its truly amazing look at a tiger look at a cute panda and ask urself can randomness create that? hope this helps some lost soul ^^
I can't tell if you're trolling or just poorly educated.
On March 06 2012 01:55 jello_biafra wrote: Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself.
This doesn't prove that we do or do not have freewill. It could suggest that we subconsciously make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them.
If your decisions are subconscious, then you don't control them, which means you don't have free will...
But there could be feedback loops or whatnot between your conscious and your subconscious. So maybe your conscious thoughts influence your subconscious ones which influence your conscious decisions.
On March 06 2012 01:55 jello_biafra wrote: Well it's already been shown in brain scans that your brain makes decisions before you conciously make them yourself.
This doesn't prove that we do or do not have freewill. It could suggest that we subconsciously make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them.
If your decisions are subconscious, then you don't control them, which means you don't have free will...
Your subconsciousness it part of "you". Trying to separate it for no apparent reason is what is causing most of this confusion.
2 the 2 posts above im not english speaking and church did not teach me this as churches = corrupt ok why do we wear clothes?? u morons watch 1 -2 natgeo shows on evolution and u retards beileve them?? retards
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote: Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
It does not give you any free will whatsoever necessarily. The "universe" diverges in multiple universe model when atoms split due to random quantum mechanisms and are you trying to argue that atoms have free will ?
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power and those without. Look there, at that woman. My God, just look at her. Affecting everyone around her; so obvious, so bourgeois, so boring. But wait. Watch, you see, I have sent her a dessert...a very special dessert. I wrote it myself. It starts so simply; each line of the program creating a new effect, just like...poetry. First, a rush. Heat. Her heart flutters. You can see it, Neo, yes? She does not understand, why? Is it the wine? No...what is it, then, what is the reason? But soon it does not matter. Soon the why and the reason are gone, and all that matters is the feeling itself. And this is the nature of the universe; we struggle against it, we fight to deny it, but it is of course pretend, it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. [inhales] Causality. There is no escaping it. We are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the why. Why is what separates us from them, you from me. Why is the only real source of power, without it you are powerless. And this is how you come to me: without why, without power, another link in the chain. But, fear not, since I have seen how good you are at following orders, I will tell you what to do next. Run back, and give the fortune-teller this message: her time is almost up. [stands] Now, I have some real business to attend to, so I will bid you adieu and goodbye.
Ohhh man, sounds like a good read. I wonder if they'll be selling it at Target, I have a gift card for there that I would like to spend on something...
I don't have that much to discuss on the thread, since there isn't that much going on yet because the book hasn't been released yet...well I guess today it has but you can't read it in a couple of hours!
As far as the obvious discussion about the contents of the book I'll leave that up to the other folks who want to get into this debate, I think it's just going to come down to everyone trying to make the other person change their way of thinking, which isn't going to happen...
Thanks for linking the book, I didn't even know about it and I'll be picking it up shortly. Currently on sale too!!!
It certainly doesn't prove anything, but it raises some questions about will and backwards causality. Note that they use "weak measurements," which, from what I can gather, are not very popular among most scientists.
Briefly about those measurements:
By the late 1980s, Aharonov had seen a way out: He could study the system using so-called weak measurements. (Weak measurements involve the same equipment and techniques as traditional ones, but the “knob” controlling the power of the observer’s apparatus is turned way down so as not to disturb the quantum properties in play.) In quantum physics, the weaker the measurement, the less precise it can be. Perform just one weak measurement on one particle and your results are next to useless. You may think that you have seen the required amplification, but you could just as easily dismiss it as noise or an error in your apparatus.
The way to get credible results, Tollaksen realized, was with persistence, not intensity. By 2002 physicists attuned to the potential of weak measurements were repeating their experiments thousands of times, hoping to build up a bank of data persuasively showing evidence of backward causality through the amplification effect.
I also found very interesting the instance where they abandoned a final step and still got the same result, which they explained rather strangely.
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. People have an intuitive idea of free will. Maybe it's self-contradictory. Or it's incompatible with determinism. But defining it as something completely different is confusing as hell. edit: But certainly not wrong in the logical sense.
It is not defining it as something completely different, that is stretching it, not even mentioning that you said opposite, not different in your post. That definition is consistent with the people's intuitive idea of free will, just the social one and not the mystical one.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
What is free will?
Similarly, why do current religions embrace free will when past religions denied its existence on large-scale views of the universe?
I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.)
yes the universe works within a set of laws, but our laws of phsyics are imperfect, as is our math and other fields of science, we have much to learn, but even with all of the laws being known free will most certainly still exists. there's just walls we can't break down. the rigidity of science can't reflect on free will in that you can't make free will into a single variable. think of it like coding a video game, you create a world with its own physics and set all of the rules, and there are choices within that world that can be made or not made and each person has the free will to choose in that, were free will not there everyone would play every game the exact same way as the "rules" would require in the OP's idea of things, yet here we are on a sc2 site, where thousands upon thousands of people play the game in a massive variety of ways
On March 06 2012 02:36 Hypertension wrote: The multiverse doesn't save you from determinism. It is simply that the vast number of consistant outcomes occur. You did not get any choice in them happening, they were all predetermined by physics.
You are getting closer, but that is still not it.
Your last sentence that all possible outcomes are predetermined by physics should not have been added, since it doesn't negate anything here. I do not need an event to be inconsistent with physics in any sense. As long as 2 outcomes are available, choice may exist. Current physics grant me those numerous outcomes. Current physics cannot select a specific future and known laws cannot define which valid universe state I will exist in next, all its states is that a vast number of possibilities are consistent with the current state.
I agree that the main argument against free will in a multiverse is your third sentence: that the validity of the choice may be lost if all alternatives are followed. The only attempt as preserving a true form of free will in that context that I have read about would be Anathem, by Neal Stephenson, but it's fiction and not philosophy (I could have sworn there was a dead pixel here on my screeen ...)
The risk in your argument though is that if I take away the multiverse, you remain with a world where multiple alternatives consistent with physics are available, only one will occur, and you don't have anything available to explain the selection of the alternative. Which means you have no argument against someone deciding to call it free will.
I also can't really logically except the idea of free will. The point the OP makes I think is valid. I've also heard the idea of the spiritual side of making decisions. As in, our spirit or soul (or w/e your belief system) allow us to make decisions. I don't think this works either. Let's say our spirit overwrote our physical existence and rendered it meaningless. I still don't think this is truly free will. If our spirit makes a decision, it is making a decision that is based on everything that has ever happened in our lives, and all of the biases that come with it. Some could say that what has happened in our lives just helps make our decisions. But if you take them away we are making our choices randomly. Random doesn't sound like free will either. I don't know if my point was clear, if not I'm sorry, I tried to make my post as short as possible :/
On March 06 2012 02:36 Hypertension wrote: The multiverse doesn't save you from determinism. It is simply that the vast number of consistant outcomes occur. You did not get any choice in them happening, they were all predetermined by physics.
You are getting closer, but that is still not it.
Your last sentence that all possible outcomes are predetermined by physics should not have been added, since it doesn't negate anything here. I do not need an event to be inconsistent with physics in any sense. As long as 2 outcomes are available, choice may exist. Current physics grant me those numerous outcomes. Current physics cannot select a specific future and known laws cannot define which valid universe state I will exist in next, all its states is that a vast number of possibilities are consistent with the current state.
I agree that the main argument against free will in a multiverse is your third sentence: that the validity of the choice may be lost if all alternatives are followed. The only attempt as preserving a true form of free will in that context that I have read about would be Anathem, by Neal Stephenson, but it's fiction and not philosophy (I could have sworn there was a dead pixel here on my screeen ...)
The risk in your argument though is that if I take away the multiverse, you remain with a world where multiple alternatives consistent with physics are available, only one will occur, and you don't have anything available to explain the selection of the alternative. Which means you have no argument against someone deciding to call it free will.
The part I bolded is the part in contention. What makes you think that two options exist? Current physics only allows for one outcome to any one interaction. We don't have any idea how a "free will" might work. As far as we know, cause follows effect, with maybe some randomness thrown in. There has been no physical explanaion that accounts for "choice".
On March 06 2012 02:36 Hypertension wrote: The multiverse doesn't save you from determinism. It is simply that the vast number of consistant outcomes occur. You did not get any choice in them happening, they were all predetermined by physics.
You are getting closer, but that is still not it.
Your last sentence that all possible outcomes are predetermined by physics should not have been added, since it doesn't negate anything here. I do not need an event to be inconsistent with physics in any sense. As long as 2 outcomes are available, choice may exist. Current physics grant me those numerous outcomes. Current physics cannot select a specific future and known laws cannot define which valid universe state I will exist in next, all its states is that a vast number of possibilities are consistent with the current state.
I agree that the main argument against free will in a multiverse is your third sentence: that the validity of the choice may be lost if all alternatives are followed. The only attempt as preserving a true form of free will in that context that I have read about would be Anathem, by Neal Stephenson, but it's fiction and not philosophy (I could have sworn there was a dead pixel here on my screeen ...)
The risk in your argument though is that if I take away the multiverse, you remain with a world where multiple alternatives consistent with physics are available, only one will occur, and you don't have anything available to explain the selection of the alternative. Which means you have no argument against someone deciding to call it free will.
The part I bolded is the part in contention. What makes you think that two options exist? Current physics only allows for one outcome to any one interaction. We don't have any idea how a "free will" might work. As far as we know, cause follows effect, with maybe some randomness thrown in. There has been no physical explanaion that accounts for "choice".
My feeling is that even if there seems to be "2 choices" physics will still determine it, not you, even if it has to do it randomly. Is this what you're saying?
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. People have an intuitive idea of free will. Maybe it's self-contradictory. Or it's incompatible with determinism. But defining it as something completely different is confusing as hell. edit: But certainly not wrong in the logical sense.
It is not defining it as something completely different, that is stretching it, not even mentioning that you said opposite, not different in your post. That definition is consistent with the people's intuitive idea of free will, just the social one and not the mystical one.
I said, almost, but not completely opposite.[1] I think most people would say the statement: "Your thoughts are predetermined, but that doesn't mean you don't have free will" is obviously false. Hard to check though so we might just have to agree to disagree.
[1]Supposed to be a reference to the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy where the computer on the Heart of Gold that gave Arthur a beverage that tasted almost, but not quite entirely, unlike tea.
It's difficult to have a real discussion about whether or not the discoveries that are being made in neuroscience-land (and regurgitated in pop science / pseudo-philosophy books like the one OP refers to) have any bearing on the existence of free will when most people are running around with what all the cool philosopher kids will tell you is an extremely antiquated notion of what free will is.
A lot of people when they talk about free will subscribe (sometimes without really realizing it) to some sort of mind-body dualism--ie, they make a distinction between "I" and all the particles and chemicals that make up their brain; they will distinguish between their mind and their physical body. They view decisions as coming from the "mind", wherever that lives...and don't think about it a whole lot more than that.
It's fairly non-controversial to say that the universe is largely deterministic (with some, mostly quantum-level, randomness), and we're learning from neuroscience that the mind is physically rooted in the brain (shocking!). So we conclude from this that what goes on in our heads is largely deterministic; cool. But does that actually rule out free will?
Not really. Saying that your decisions are the result of chemical reactions going off in your brain isn't any different than saying that your decisions are based on your past experiences, preferences, biases, etc. -- all of which are part of and represented by the chemistry going on in your head. If you offer me the choice of chocolate or vanilla ice cream, I'll pick vanilla because I like vanilla. My liking vanilla, whether because of past experience (say the last time I had chocolate ice cream was also the time my dog got run over by the ice cream truck T.T), or just gut-level preference, is chemically part of my brain. Saying that the decisions that you make are chemical or deterministic is just the same as saying that your past experiences, your preferences, all of that--who you are as a person, in short--impact your decisions.
Really, it would be weird if your experiences, your preferences didn't influence your choices. For that matter, how would you make choices if all of that history, all of those chemical reactions in your head didn't bear on your decision? If you strip all of that away, my choosing one flavor of ice cream over another seems more random than anything.
What I'm getting at is a shorthand definition of free will that goes something like this: you have free will if and only if given a choice, you could choose otherwise (if your past experiences were different, if your preferences were different...). The real serious, meaty philosophical formulations of what free will is and how it's compatible with determinism take a lot more time than this amateur version, but there's the rough sketch of things.
Random Side Note: those "we found that subjects scratched their ears without making a decision to do so, then went back and made up memories/justifications for doing so" experiments are a long way removed from any sort of real decision making, even something as basic as which flavor of ice cream to choose; that the neuroscience set keeps peddling those results as evidence that we're not in control of real decisions is deeply disingenuous.
Random Side Note II: getting rid of free will doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on the problem of evil / theodicy / God's existence or non-existence; most serious formulations of the problem of evil argument against God will grant free will as a premise and leverage things like gratuitous evil to make the argument stand up; these are much more problematic for Christian apologists than whether or not free will exists.
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. People have an intuitive idea of free will. Maybe it's self-contradictory. Or it's incompatible with determinism. But defining it as something completely different is confusing as hell. edit: But certainly not wrong in the logical sense.
It is not defining it as something completely different, that is stretching it, not even mentioning that you said opposite, not different in your post. That definition is consistent with the people's intuitive idea of free will, just the social one and not the mystical one.
I said, almost, but not completely opposite.[1] I think most people would say the statement: "Your thoughts are predetermined, but that doesn't mean you don't have free will" is obviously false. Hard to check though so we might just have to agree to disagree.
[1]Supposed to be a reference to the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy where the computer on the Heart of Gold that gave Arthur a beverage that tasted almost, but not quite entirely, unlike tea.
On March 06 2012 02:36 Hypertension wrote: The multiverse doesn't save you from determinism. It is simply that the vast number of consistant outcomes occur. You did not get any choice in them happening, they were all predetermined by physics.
You are getting closer, but that is still not it.
Your last sentence that all possible outcomes are predetermined by physics should not have been added, since it doesn't negate anything here. I do not need an event to be inconsistent with physics in any sense. As long as 2 outcomes are available, choice may exist. Current physics grant me those numerous outcomes. Current physics cannot select a specific future and known laws cannot define which valid universe state I will exist in next, all its states is that a vast number of possibilities are consistent with the current state.
I agree that the main argument against free will in a multiverse is your third sentence: that the validity of the choice may be lost if all alternatives are followed. The only attempt as preserving a true form of free will in that context that I have read about would be Anathem, by Neal Stephenson, but it's fiction and not philosophy (I could have sworn there was a dead pixel here on my screeen ...)
The risk in your argument though is that if I take away the multiverse, you remain with a world where multiple alternatives consistent with physics are available, only one will occur, and you don't have anything available to explain the selection of the alternative. Which means you have no argument against someone deciding to call it free will.
The part I bolded is the part in contention. What makes you think that two options exist? Current physics only allows for one outcome to any one interaction. We don't have any idea how a "free will" might work. As far as we know, cause follows effect, with maybe some randomness thrown in. There has been no physical explanaion that accounts for "choice".
My feeling is that even if there seems to be "2 choices" physics will still determine it, not you, even if it has to do it randomly. Is this what you're saying?
Yes, Exactly. As far as we know right now there is no free will in the universe. Not to say that there isn't free will, we just have no idea right now how it would work. So we seem to be a slave to our physics.
On March 06 2012 03:20 trashman wrote: Random Side Note: those "we found that subjects scratched their ears without making a decision to do so, then went back and made up memories/justifications for doing so" experiments are a long way removed from any sort of real decision making, even something as basic as which flavor of ice cream to choose; that the neuroscience set keeps peddling those results as evidence that we're not in control of real decisions is deeply disingenuous.
The point of these experiments isn't to prove that we don't have free will. The point is to show that you can have the vivid sensation or memory of having made a conscious decision even if you didn't.
On March 06 2012 03:02 Saaph wrote: I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.)
QM does not violate determinism, at least not the sensible interpretations. MWI for example is deterministic, has the same evidential basis as CI and is simpler. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quickly losing its adherents and it is a shame that its memes have infected the mainstream culture so much.
edit: as to the OP, free will is an illusion and mysticism is retarded. Nothing new here.
The concept that all of one's actions are causally determined does not necessarily preclude them from being "free", depending on your definition of freedom. Some of your actions are obviously determined entirely by your condition in physical reality - say someone put in jail has no choice as to whether or not to go outside. On the other hand many of ones actions have their beginnings entirely or almost entirely within oneself - for example you feel inclined to play starcraft, go to your computer and play starcraft. Committed determinists will obviously argue that you are not really the source of your urge to play starcraft, that it is created by a confluence of your external environment, past experiences and internal biological machinery. But can you really assert that when you are able to go play starcraft or take a walk outside you are not in some way more free than when externalizes prevent you from doing so? To use an example from Fichte, a tree left entirely to itself would surely grow tall and broad, but if it was grown in a cage its growth would be permanently stunted. Trees, more obviously so than humans, have a set nature by which they operate if left to themselves. They are not "free" in the sense of being able to create themselves, and neither are we. Our nature, our personality, is just something that is, created by circumstance. Still, is there not a measure of freedom to be found in operating according to one's nature, in a tree growing to its full height or in a man going for a walk, regardless of its source, when the alternative is that that nature is unable to unfold due to circumstance?
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy Im studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote: I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
You are relying on the law of causality when using such terms and definitions. Nothing is only black and white by itsself unless you make it that. The law you rely on is just a way to interpret the world, but its not proven to be true, nor can it ever be. David Hume wrote a lot of interesting stuff on causality and found, that such a law can never be proven by induction.
Also you rely on the Law of noncontradiction and the Law of excluded middle. But who proved those laws to be true? Noone, right, because its impossible.
On March 06 2012 03:02 Saaph wrote: I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.)
QM does not violate determinism, at least not the sensible interpretations. MWI for example is deterministic, has the same evidential basis as CI and is simpler. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quickly losing its adherents and it is a shame that its memes have infected the mainstream culture so much.
edit: as to the OP, free will is an illusion and mysticism is retarded. Nothing new here.
Determinism has little to do with interpretations at this point. You have a choice between no hidden variables (which would mean no determinism) or no locality. It's definitely not a matter of "the sensible interpretations choose determinism over locality" or something.
I can't take anyone who thinks we don't have a free will seriously. Sorry. Of course we're influenced by things around us and our genetics, but in the end we make all the decisions. In high school I had days when I woke up and didn't want to go to school, and with varied results. You're saying that on the days when I stayed at home, I was so tired or fed up with school that it was inevitable, and that during the days that I actually got up and went off to school, I was actually fine. I'm not buying it. I think that in both cases, both options were almost equally convincing, so that's why I made different decisions. I know that going up was always the right decision, but it was a hard decision to make. To take the hard road and go against your natural impulses is what builds character.
There's a difference between having tendencies and doing something. Some ppl have tendencies to be violent, but not everyone reacts on the impulses. It's all about character and doing whatever you feel is objectively the right thing, despite the fact that the wrong action seems more convincing.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
But why did you decide to lift your leg? Was it in response to the 'stimulus' of reading that you have no free will, leading you to lift your leg to prove that you in fact do have free will? If so, then is that really free will?
On March 06 2012 03:34 ninini wrote: I can't take anyone who thinks we don't have a free will seriously. Sorry. Of course we're influenced by things around us and our genetics, but in the end we make all the decisions. In high school I had days when I woke up and didn't want to go to school, and with varied results. You're saying that on the days when I stayed at home, I was so tired or fed up with school that it was inevitable, and that during the days that I actually got up and went off to school, I was actually fine. I'm not buying it. I think that in both cases, both options were almost equally convincing, so that's why I made different decisions. I know that going up was always the right decision, but it was a hard decision to make. To take the hard road and go against your natural impulses is what builds character.
There's a difference between having tendencies and doing something. Some ppl have tendencies to be violent, but not everyone reacts on the impulses. It's all about character and doing whatever you feel is objectively the right thing, despite the fact that the wrong action seems more convincing.
They would tell you that unless you are capable of sorcery and able to bend the laws of physics to your will, that you have no will. It's like arguing with a religious person. There can be no discussion because there is no counterargument to "It's just the way it is."
Regardless of whether it's true or not, I see no point in discussing it, because if the general populace thinks they have free will, and our society is operated as if we have free will, then we may as well have free will. It serves no practical purpose to debate otherwise.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy Im studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote: I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
You are relying on the law of causality when using such terms and definitions. Nothing is only black and white by itsself unless you make it that. The law you rely on is just a way to interpret the world, but its not proven to be true, nor can it ever be. David Hume wrote on a lot of interesting stuff on causality and such a law can never be proven by induction.
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
On March 06 2012 03:34 ninini wrote: I can't take anyone who thinks we don't have a free will seriously. Sorry. Of course we're influenced by things around us and our genetics, but in the end we make all the decisions. In high school I had days when I woke up and didn't want to go to school, and with varied results. You're saying that on the days when I stayed at home, I was so tired or fed up with school that it was inevitable, and that during the days that I actually got up and went off to school, I was actually fine. I'm not buying it. I think that in both cases, both options were almost equally convincing, so that's why I made different decisions. I know that going up was always the right decision, but it was a hard decision to make. To take the hard road and go against your natural impulses is what builds character.
There's a difference between having tendencies and doing something. Some ppl have tendencies to be violent, but not everyone reacts on the impulses. It's all about character and doing whatever you feel is objectively the right thing, despite the fact that the wrong action seems more convincing.
The environment is not excluded.
Simply put, in line with your reasoning the argument is that what you believe are choices are just products of your genes and your environment.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
On March 06 2012 03:02 Saaph wrote: I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.)
QM does not violate determinism, at least not the sensible interpretations. MWI for example is deterministic, has the same evidential basis as CI and is simpler. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quickly losing its adherents and it is a shame that its memes have infected the mainstream culture so much.
edit: as to the OP, free will is an illusion and mysticism is retarded. Nothing new here.
Determinism has little to do with interpretations at this point. You have a choice between no hidden variables (which would mean no determinism) or no locality. It's definitely not a matter of "the sensible interpretations choose determinism over locality" or something.
A perfect inductive reasoner (IE solomonoff induction) would choose some interpretations over others, because they are strictly simpler. I'm not sure I understand your response, perhaps you could expand?
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
Depends on what makes up a self. I'd lean more towards the whole body than a specific part of the brain, especially if you include your past in your "self".
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
Oooooooo, scary.
Hard to tell when you say something that foolish. "Confused ideas", wtf does that even mean? Sounds like something Dennett would say.
In either case you would sound a lot less arrogant if you provided the criteria by which you separate Kant and Aristotle from philosophy "worth reading".
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
If I was vomiting I would have no problem saying "I am vomiting". I wouldn't say that an involuntary part of my gastroinstinal tract has decided to vomit. Why does the self need a better description than "the whole body". It seems perfectly sufficient.
On March 06 2012 03:33 Anubis390 wrote: That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy Im studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life.
I'm studying Philosophy as well and i was just about to give the same answer. Feel kissed and hugged for your reasonable act of free will
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
Well, the debate is typically framed in terms of destiny vs free will. However, quantum mechanics throws a wrench in that and argues that neither position is correct. We may not have free will but our destiny is not set in stone either.
Then again until physics comes up with a grand unified theory to reconcile the randomness at the quantum level with the determinism at the macro level, we may never know.
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
Oooooooo, scary.
Hard to tell when you say something that foolish. "Confused ideas", wtf does that even mean?
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. By confused ideas I am mainly referring to the heavy dose of intuition that played a role in their reasoning. Intuitions that, in later years, seem unfounded and confused. Ancient greeks had intuitions about nature and the cosmos that played a large role in their philosophy. Anyone who studies (and actually reads) Plato and thinks he is learning something profound is probably too lost to appreciate contemporary movements that are actually informed by modern neuroscience and computer science/probability theory/physics. For an example on modern epistemology, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Mainstream-Formal-Epistemology-Vincent-Hendricks/dp/0521718988/?tag=vglnk-c319-20 .
On March 06 2012 03:02 Saaph wrote: I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.)
QM does not violate determinism, at least not the sensible interpretations. MWI for example is deterministic, has the same evidential basis as CI and is simpler. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quickly losing its adherents and it is a shame that its memes have infected the mainstream culture so much.
edit: as to the OP, free will is an illusion and mysticism is retarded. Nothing new here.
Determinism has little to do with interpretations at this point. You have a choice between no hidden variables (which would mean no determinism) or no locality. It's definitely not a matter of "the sensible interpretations choose determinism over locality" or something.
A perfect inductive reasoner (IE solomonoff induction) would choose some interpretations over others, because they are strictly simpler. I'm not sure I understand your response, perhaps you could expand?
Bell's theorem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem) shows deliberately that no account of local hidden variables can accurately match the predictions of quantum mechanics. So if you assume that quantum particles are like dice or something with hidden values like "spin 90 degrees" or "1.2 nanometers per second" you won't ever be able to create a model that says the same things as quantum mechanics. Basically, models of quantum mechanics that say "particles actually have hidden information that guides behavior" can't explain what happens in certain cases of entanglement without appeal to non-local action between two particles.
So there isn't a choice between wacky indeterministic theories and solid deterministic ones any more. The only option other than indeterminism is instantaneous action at infinite distances, which maybe you want to choose that but it's quite unprecedented and would be very surprising. I don't know how nuanced your understanding of QM is but I guess I'm being disingenuous in just saying plain "indeterminism," but you can either have locality or the ability to speak of actual properties of things before measurement has taken place. This latter isn't indeterminism properly speaking, but it does mean that, combined with the uncertainty principle, we can never come up with the information necessary to make exact predictions about the world, which is sufficient indeterminism for an incompatibilist.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
If I was vomiting I would have no problem saying "I am vomiting". I wouldn't say that an involuntary part of my gastroinstinal tract has decided to vomit. Why does the self need a better description than "the whole body". It seems perfectly sufficient.
Sorry, my example was a little bad. You can't hold that your whole body is the self in discussions about free will unless you make some kind of later distinction between free mindful actions (i.e. those things most people say the "self" does) and automatic things that just happen in your body, for instance digestion and becoming tired. After you make this distinction you're back at the same place, trying to find whatever exactly sets apart these mindful decisions and where the line is and so on. So you can choose the self to be the entire body (does that include material in your digestive tract? pathogens in your blood?) but you aren't miraculously out of the realm of demarcating the difference between free, mindful acts and nonfree ones.
I've always found the discussion of free will to be incredibly boring. If we have free will things continue as they are, if we don't have free will ... things continue as they are ...
The bottom line here is that our actions won't change if we have free will or everything is predetermined (or otherwise out of our control). Because this topic will not, and in fact cannot, impact our lives I find the discussion of it be a waste of energy.
I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind but we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors nature was driven by genes and environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of man you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
Oooooooo, scary.
Hard to tell when you say something that foolish. "Confused ideas", wtf does that even mean?
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. By confused ideas I am mainly referring to the heavy dose of intuition that played a role in their reasoning. Intuitions that, in later years, seem unfounded and confused. Ancient greeks had intuitions about nature and the cosmos that played a large role in their philosophy. Anyone who studies (and actually reads) Plato and thinks he is learning something profound is probably too lost to appreciate contemporary movements that are actually informed by modern neuroscience and computer science/probability theory/physics. For an example on modern epistemology, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Mainstream-Formal-Epistemology-Vincent-Hendricks/dp/0521718988/?tag=vglnk-c319-20 .
Nice book.
I think it's an error to read any philosophical text as if it was absolute fact; self-criticism from within the community can't even establish whether one text is closer to reality than another. But saying "unfounded and confused" kinda mixes the distinctions between philosophy and science (at least the artificial ones philosophers have created) by begging the question "confused about what"? It's not like philosophers have been struggling to approach the same subject matter for thousands of years. Plato wasn't talking about the same things as Spinoza, and Spinoza wasn't tackling the same problems as Descartes.
Cultural reverence isn't a strike against Kant and Aristotle, more a denouncement of how people actually approach the texts.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote: I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
I refuse to accept that basic argument. I recommend to you to take a look at the laws of Dialectic. You may find that there is ALWAYS an at least temporary shade of gray in every development and the fact that the author and you cant logically figure that out is questionable and seems unlogically to me. Sure i am determined to eat and drink but if i would stand in front of you slapping your face every 10 sec while you are bound to a tree, would you accept that as an act of determination? I certainly wouldn't, whatever partly actual, partly since centuries reasnable questioned "scientific" streams want me to beleive.
On March 06 2012 04:15 archonOOid wrote: I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind but we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors nature was driven by genes and environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of man you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
What about the idea that while we are fundamentally governed by biology, there is something unique about mankind which creates free will. How does a purely determinist view of the world account for Kant or Hume or Locke or Plato? It seems to be a real stretch to think that the environment could purely determine such people. I will consider free will to exist out of skepticism until someone can show me that purely biological/environmental factors caused the creation of starcraft.
edit: What I am trying to flesh out is that a purely deterministic view of the world seems to be a logical extrema, not a necessary conclusion. It's clear to any intelligent observer that a lot of the world is determined. But that does not make it prima facie that there can not be free will.
On March 06 2012 04:15 archonOOid wrote: I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind but we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors nature was driven by genes and environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of man you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
What about the idea that while we are fundamentally governed by biology, there is something unique about mankind which creates free will. How does a purely determinist view of the world account for Kant or Hume or Locke or Plato? It seems to be a real stretch to think that the environment could purely determine such people. I will consider free will to exist out of skepticism until someone can show me that purely biological/environmental factors caused the creation of starcraft.
edit: What I am trying to flesh out is that a purely deterministic view of the world seems to be a logical extrema, not a necessary conclusion. It's clear to any intelligent observer that a lot of the world is determined. But that does not make it prima facie that there can not be free will.
You are right, however, you are also wrong. You do make the choice to move your leg, as far as you are concerned. Unfortunately, you are looking at a superficial level, where as the OP is looking at the level of more significance. As a person, no, as an organism, you are designed how evolution and physics has dictated (your nature). How you were raised (your nurture) influences your life and causes you to respond. How you respond exactly depends on your genetics (your nature), AND overtime your nurture begins to take shape and become intertwined with your genetics i.e. you learn and adapt. Eventually your genetics and what has been imprinted on you via your environment become one and the same. They shape you, your personality, everything about you. So essentially, physics has dictated EVERYTHING in your life up to the very point where you read the OP's post, and it dictated how you responded. You make THINK your thoughts are your own, but you'd be wrong. It's cause and effect on an infinite scale, one that you apparently had never considered before. The electrical impulses are generated because of the stimuli of whatever it was, that based on your genetics and your experience, was exactly how you had to respond. As a byproduct of the stimuli and the complicated machine that is "you", "you" have a thought to lift your leg. But in reality, you were always going to lift your leg at that moment. There was nothing you could do about it, becuase physics had already determined it. Just as physics had already determined that i would read your response, see the ridiculous of it, have the desire to educate you, and respond with this. Although since the medium is the internet, I can't say it will have much affect on you if you see this. But i have met people like you. You make good points, you just don't see far enough to the whole picture.
God and free will does make sense, but only if you believe there is something "beyond" the physical world. Now, if such a thing were to exist, it would/does-not-have-to-be detectable through material means (science and observation for example). It must be "found" using logic, a non-physical thing that "exists" in some sense. This is why I find the example as it relates to science rather humorous. Science only applies to things in the physical world. So we accept some of these findings and say that, if free will exists, it does not exist in the physical world. This moves the debate into philosophy. Does reason say that God exists? Does reason say that free will exists? But here the debate happens, some would say God does not, some say he does; the same happens with free will. (I cannot understand how people can use "science" to say he does not. They can use science to explain why physical actions occur, but not the logic behind them, here they must accept "laws" and constants that just so happen to work out for us. We need to be careful and not overstep our bounds.)
IMO this is why people such as Richard Dawkins need to be scrutinized a little more.
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
Oooooooo, scary.
Hard to tell when you say something that foolish. "Confused ideas", wtf does that even mean?
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. By confused ideas I am mainly referring to the heavy dose of intuition that played a role in their reasoning. Intuitions that, in later years, seem unfounded and confused. Ancient greeks had intuitions about nature and the cosmos that played a large role in their philosophy. Anyone who studies (and actually reads) Plato and thinks he is learning something profound is probably too lost to appreciate contemporary movements that are actually informed by modern neuroscience and computer science/probability theory/physics. For an example on modern epistemology, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Mainstream-Formal-Epistemology-Vincent-Hendricks/dp/0521718988/?tag=vglnk-c319-20 .
Nice book.
I think it's an error to read any philosophical text as if it was absolute fact; self-criticism from within the community can't even establish whether one text is closer to reality than another. But saying "unfounded and confused" kinda mixes the distinctions between philosophy and science (at least the artificial ones philosophers have created) by begging the question "confused about what"? It's not like philosophers have been struggling to approach the same subject matter for thousands of years. Plato wasn't talking about the same things as Spinoza, and Spinoza wasn't tackling the same problems as Descartes.
Cultural reverence isn't a strike against Kant and Aristotle, more a denouncement of how people actually approach the texts.
To put it as simply as possible, I am a logical positivist when it comes to metaphysics and the scope of philosophy. Obviously, that movement had its own flaws (relatively minor ones, IMO), but it's critiques of metaphysics and ethics I agree with 100%. Most ancient philosophers spent an absurd amount of time with their heads up their asses regarding metaphysics. Hence my disposition towards old philosophy. Obviously, there are exceptions and they ALL had SOME valuable things to say. The signal to noise ratio is pretty poor, however.
edit: not really going to respond anymore. The TL community is awesome in a lot of ways but scientific literacy/philosophical understanding is not one of its strong suits. TL is for starcraft, sites like lesswrong and rationallyspeaking are for philosophy.
On March 06 2012 01:28 mcc wrote: Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
I mostly agree that the philosophical notion of free will is hard to define and probably can't exist, but to turn around and define free will as almost the exact opposite is a bit cynical.
How is it the opposite ? It is the only reasonable formulation of free will that I can find and is what free will means in social context. What is wrong with it ? It says you have free will if you are not excessively forced by outside agents or in other words if you are free to decide according to your own nature (by internal mechanisms). What more should free will mean ? You are trying to posit a free will that would mean that an entity would possibly choose two different actions in the same situation. How is it actually free will, is it not randomness instead ?
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. People have an intuitive idea of free will. Maybe it's self-contradictory. Or it's incompatible with determinism. But defining it as something completely different is confusing as hell. edit: But certainly not wrong in the logical sense.
It is not defining it as something completely different, that is stretching it, not even mentioning that you said opposite, not different in your post. That definition is consistent with the people's intuitive idea of free will, just the social one and not the mystical one.
I said, almost, but not completely opposite.[1] I think most people would say the statement: "Your thoughts are predetermined, but that doesn't mean you don't have free will" is obviously false. Hard to check though so we might just have to agree to disagree.
[1]Supposed to be a reference to the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy where the computer on the Heart of Gold that gave Arthur a beverage that tasted almost, but not quite entirely, unlike tea.
Well hard to check empirically without doing some survey, but note what is considered to have free will in judiciary, when entering a contract, when in general dealing with other people. It pretty well fits that definition.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
That is because we created artificial divide between free and non-free acts of our selfs. It is a continuous scale.
1) You're assuming that there is some combination of factors that influence our "choice" and that those factors are random but determined and that denies the existence of free will. You're taking a conclusion (that we haven't proved and likely cannot ever prove) and saying, well it's not inconsistent with our current view of the universe thus no other hypothesis can be true.
2) The shot at religion seems out of place but the societal belief of free will is somewhat of a pragmatic necessity. If I don't believe I can make decisions and that my "choices" are really choices, what motivation is there for anything? If I fail/ace a test, murder/save someone's life, and even live/die it was all determined by factors I can't influence. You're nothing more than a robot with pre-programming living out a routine. I don't think any social circle would get too many members teaching this.
On March 06 2012 04:47 koreasilver wrote: Minor flaws like how the entire movement collapsed upon itself, right?
Not really true, more like moved on. It's not like everyone rescinded all of their initial beliefs and became rationalists. The group fell apart, the movement fell out of favor. Much of what was good in their philosophy was adopted by others who were not part of the movement. Ethical nonrealism, emotivism, the scope of philosophy, many of these positions are widely accepted and just because the group fell apart doesn't mean everything they stood for did as well.
Like most things in this world, its just not that simple.
On March 06 2012 04:15 archonOOid wrote: I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind but we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors nature was driven by genes and environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of man you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
What about the idea that while we are fundamentally governed by biology, there is something unique about mankind which creates free will. How does a purely determinist view of the world account for Kant or Hume or Locke or Plato? It seems to be a real stretch to think that the environment could purely determine such people. I will consider free will to exist out of skepticism until someone can show me that purely biological/environmental factors caused the creation of starcraft.
edit: What I am trying to flesh out is that a purely deterministic view of the world seems to be a logical extrema, not a necessary conclusion. It's clear to any intelligent observer that a lot of the world is determined. But that does not make it prima facie that there can not be free will.
But rational approach is to not assume existence of things just because they may exist. Do you also assume existence of unicorns until someone disproves their existence to you ? And since there is no mechanism to be a vehicle of this free will and we do not need free will to explain anything in natural world, why would you assume that it exists ? Note that I am talking about that mystical version of free will that contradicts determinism.
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote: Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
It does not give you any free will whatsoever necessarily. The "universe" diverges in multiple universe model when atoms split due to random quantum mechanisms and are you trying to argue that atoms have free will ?
Thank you
I was trying to get Hypertension there, but somehow he was lost in a determinist/non determinist statement. I would agree that in such a description atomes and all particules have freedom and that freedom does not necessarily imply free will. I would then have to assert that it is our hability to interpret our choices and their consequences as part of a narrative that allows us to identify individual choices as free will.
On March 06 2012 04:15 archonOOid wrote: I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind but we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors nature was driven by genes and environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of man you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
What about the idea that while we are fundamentally governed by biology, there is something unique about mankind which creates free will. How does a purely determinist view of the world account for Kant or Hume or Locke or Plato? It seems to be a real stretch to think that the environment could purely determine such people. I will consider free will to exist out of skepticism until someone can show me that purely biological/environmental factors caused the creation of starcraft.
edit: What I am trying to flesh out is that a purely deterministic view of the world seems to be a logical extrema, not a necessary conclusion. It's clear to any intelligent observer that a lot of the world is determined. But that does not make it prima facie that there can not be free will.
What does this even mean?
well you are observing on the world at it's current state, how far could you make those arguments back in time? From a atheist perspective could you prove like that there is free will (god). A hypothesis for free will certainly exists as for the existence of god and it creates good discussion. As time goes on and we can't conclude that free will exists a deterministic view stands firm. The idea of thinking that god or free exists doesn't make it true.
On March 06 2012 04:47 koreasilver wrote: Minor flaws like how the entire movement collapsed upon itself, right?
Not really true, more like moved on. It's not like everyone rescinded all of their initial beliefs and became rationalists. The group fell apart, the movement fell out of favor. Much of what was good in their philosophy was adopted by others who were not part of the movement. Ethical nonrealism, emotivism, the scope of philosophy, many of these positions are widely accepted and just because the group fell apart doesn't mean everything they stood for did as well.
Like most things in this world, its just not that simple.
No, it collapsed because some of its most central tenets were exposed to be untenable. Logical positivism in itself is as dead as something ever could be. Its various descendants, although they carry on the same kind of spirit, are always mindful of the mistakes that logical positivism has made, and this is all the more so apparent in American philosophy of science. Lets not even touch upon the fact that there has been a sort of revival in metaphysics within Anglo-philosophy in recent years.
In this thread, people who really, really want to believe that humans have some sort of mystical undefined "choice" and really want to be able to judge people for their behavior go through psychological jumping jacks and philosophical loop-de-loops to try and find some fault with logic itself in order to justify believing in something that has zero evidence and defies common sense.
It's the classic "god of the gaps" syndrome. Any area where there is even a shred of doubt, suddenly becomes the justification for embracing the most illogical and unjustified notions. This type of reasoning goes hand in hand with the "you can't prove X DOESN'T exist" type of arguments. The possibility of something being true is all they need to fully embrace it. If you can't prove there isn't a typewriter on mars, then we can choose to believe there is one, without any psychological qualms.
Which is why discussions even remotely related to religion always break down; you cannot reason with people who are intent on being unreasonable. You either seek truths based upon reason, evidence, and plausibility, or you seek ideas which make you feel comfortable with the world around you. Obviously no individual is a bastion of objectivity, but clearly some people are closer than others, and such people should recognize when they are fighting an unwinnable battle.
On March 06 2012 04:47 koreasilver wrote: Minor flaws like how the entire movement collapsed upon itself, right?
Not really true, more like moved on. It's not like everyone rescinded all of their initial beliefs and became rationalists. The group fell apart, the movement fell out of favor. Much of what was good in their philosophy was adopted by others who were not part of the movement. Ethical nonrealism, emotivism, the scope of philosophy, many of these positions are widely accepted and just because the group fell apart doesn't mean everything they stood for did as well.
Like most things in this world, its just not that simple.
No, it collapsed because some of its most central tenets were exposed to be untenable. Logical positivism in itself is as dead as something ever could be. Its various descendants, although they carry on the same kind of spirit, are always mindful of the mistakes that logical positivism has made, and this is all the more so apparent in American philosophy of science. Lets not even touch upon the fact that there has been a sort of revival in metaphysics within Anglo-philosophy in recent years.
A distinction should be made between the strong positivism of someone like Carnap and the weak positivism of Ayers. Ayer's is still productive reading. Did you actually read any of the principle texts? They also didn't have access to tools such as modern probability theory, information theory and kolmogorov complexity, tools which their empiricist descendents have at their disposal. Logical positivism may be dead but their spirit lives on and much more successfully might I add.
On March 06 2012 04:13 SadSatyr wrote: I've always found the discussion of free will to be incredibly boring. If we have free will things continue as they are, if we don't have free will ... things continue as they are ...
The bottom line here is that our actions won't change if we have free will or everything is predetermined (or otherwise out of our control). Because this topic will not, and in fact cannot, impact our lives I find the discussion of it be a waste of energy.
I have to disagree with you here. There are many implications to the idea that people don't have free will. For example, many people favor a notion of retributive justice. They want to cause harm to someone, because they feel the person CHOSE to commit an evil act. If it can be proven that there was no choice involved, then the proper response would be to rehabilitate the individual in the best way possible instead of heaping our judgement and anger upon them.
In fact, the notion of "judging" a person's behavior becomes irrational completely.
i don't believe that free will doesn't exist. that is either a product of my free will (choosing to not believe), which means the theory that free will doesn't exist is incorrect, or it is a product of the physical interactions of neurons, etc., which have come to the logical conclusion that the theory that free will doesn't exist is incorrect. =D
On March 06 2012 04:13 SadSatyr wrote: I've always found the discussion of free will to be incredibly boring. If we have free will things continue as they are, if we don't have free will ... things continue as they are ...
The bottom line here is that our actions won't change if we have free will or everything is predetermined (or otherwise out of our control). Because this topic will not, and in fact cannot, impact our lives I find the discussion of it be a waste of energy.
I have to disagree with you here. There are many implications to the idea that people don't have free will. For example, many people favor a notion of retributive justice. They want to cause harm to someone, because they feel the person CHOSE to commit an evil act. If it can be proven that there was no choice involved, then the proper response would be to rehabilitate the individual in the best way possible instead of heaping our judgement and anger upon them.
In fact, the notion of "judging" a person's behavior becomes irrational completely.
Agree completely. If you haven't seen it yet, check out
As some of the TL-physicists already pointed out before me: the laws of physics are not deterministic (at the atomic level). Which means you cannot predict the future, even if you had the complete information on the universe (as in the position, composition and speeds of all particles and their interactions).
This means that if you would repeat an experiment twice, with the exact same initial conditions, you could very well have two different results. Therefore if a person were to be presented with a choice twice, with the exact same initial conditions, he could very well choose differently. There is no 'law of physics' that can determine your choices, so that rules out all forms of determinism. If that makes it 'free will' or not I can not discuss, since the concept of 'will' is not a scientific one.
On March 06 2012 06:11 Ender985 wrote: As some of the TL-physicists already pointed out before me: the laws of physics are not deterministic (at the atomic level). Which means you cannot predict the future, even if you had the complete information on the universe (as in the position, composition and speeds of all particles and their interactions).
This means that if you would repeat an experiment twice, with the exact same initial conditions, you could very well have two different results. Therefore if a person were to be presented with a choice twice, with the exact same initial conditions, he could very well choose differently. There is no 'law of physics' that can determine your choices, so that rules out all forms of determinism. If that makes it 'free will' or not I can not discuss, since the concept of 'will' is not a scientific one.
The laws of physics are deterministic on a fundamental level, but stochastic on the observer level. (Under MWI, such as Everett's decoherence)
On March 06 2012 06:11 Ender985 wrote: As some of the TL-physicists already pointed out before me: the laws of physics are not deterministic (at the atomic level). Which means you cannot predict the future, even if you had the complete information on the universe (as in the position, composition and speeds of all particles and their interactions).
This means that if you would repeat an experiment twice, with the exact same initial conditions, you could very well have two different results. Therefore if a person were to be presented with a choice twice, with the exact same initial conditions, he could very well choose differently. There is no 'law of physics' that can determine your choices, so that rules out all forms of determinism. If that makes it 'free will' or not I can not discuss, since the concept of 'will' is not a scientific one.
wouldnt that mean all "choices" are random. so, why do i eat pastrami sandwiches every monday, and chicken nachos every friday?
On March 06 2012 06:11 Ender985 wrote: As some of the TL-physicists already pointed out before me: the laws of physics are not deterministic (at the atomic level). Which means you cannot predict the future, even if you had the complete information on the universe (as in the position, composition and speeds of all particles and their interactions).
This means that if you would repeat an experiment twice, with the exact same initial conditions, you could very well have two different results. Therefore if a person were to be presented with a choice twice, with the exact same initial conditions, he could very well choose differently. There is no 'law of physics' that can determine your choices, so that rules out all forms of determinism. If that makes it 'free will' or not I can not discuss, since the concept of 'will' is not a scientific one.
The laws of physics are deterministic on a fundamental level, but stochastic on the observer level. (Under MWI, such as Everett's decoherence)
Well that's assuming MWI (Many worlds interpretation of quantum physics) the most accepted interpretation right now is I believe still the Copenhagen interpretation which requires that most subatomic particles actually function non-deterministically. But I am very far from an expert so if you have some higher level knowledge on this I would defer to that.
Sure, as long as you're fine with changing the meaning of free will to something almost, but not completely opposite.
Not really... it's most definitely still free will.
More relative to the point though, free will vs determinism might have a slight correlation to atheism vs theism but they're completely separate issues. There are plenty of atheists who believe in free will and there's plenty of philosophers who propose a deterministic notion of the existence of God.
To me, this seems pretty cut and dried from an atheistic point of view. We are simply reacting to stimuli.
The reason why we do everything can simply be linked back to the way we developed. It's the same reason that atheism cannot support a reference point for morality. Not that atheists can't have morals, just that those morals aren't linked to the belief in the absence of a god.
On the other hand, theism seems pigeon-holed into proclaiming there is such a thing as free will.
If (like in most religions as far as I know) god punishes people for doing evil things and he was the one who created us, we must have a choice. If god knowingly created us to do evil things, then god is the one who is evil. It doesn't matter what we do, we are just puppets on a string.
I read most of the thread, but not too hard. Just mostly skimmed it. Nothing I've seen has really changed my perspective yet. I don't see where quantum physics belongs in the discussion; if there had been a different "roll of the dice" we would be living in an alternate reality, but we get the hand we were dealt. We are still reacting to stimuli in that situation I would think.
On March 06 2012 01:57 Hypertension wrote: Free will means that you can defy the forces and particles that make you up and "choose" to pick up the ball or not. Determinism says that based on the previous state, your "choice" can be predicted. Multiple universes doesn't save you from determinism. It just creates more possible outcomes.
Nope, still doesn't add up. Both me picking up the ball and me letting it there are consistent with the universe and its laws as we know them. The fact that multiple outcomes exist is in itself the negation of determinism. You can state that the list of possibles is determined, but I only need 2 anyway.
I agree multiple universes gives me a free will that doesn't match the definition you seem to give it, but your counter argument is just at fault.
It does not give you any free will whatsoever necessarily. The "universe" diverges in multiple universe model when atoms split due to random quantum mechanisms and are you trying to argue that atoms have free will ?
Thank you
I was trying to get Hypertension there, but somehow he was lost in a determinist/non determinist statement. I would agree that in such a description atomes and all particules have freedom and that freedom does not necessarily imply free will. I would then have to assert that it is our hability to interpret our choices and their consequences as part of a narrative that allows us to identify individual choices as free will.
But as far as I can tell in the multiple universe interpretation the universe diverges when quantum events occur, not when people make choices. Since our choices are macroscopic in nature and thus well "shielded" from quantum events, the universes do not actually diverge on our choices. So this line of thinking also does not seem to lead where you want it to lead.
Edit: I changed the wording of the last paragraph a bit to get rid of a redundancy.
I'd just like to share my beliefs on the matter. I've put a lot of thought into the relationship between Christianity and free will. Hopefully my perspective is helpful. (I refer specifically to Christianity because I recognize that non-religious people frequently make statements about religion in general, while actually referring to distinctively Christian beliefs / cultural norms. But I digress...)
I believe that when God created the universe, he built it on a series of physical laws and constants. I believe that God is a rational being, and therefore we should not be surprised to find that his creation operates according to rational rules. (I'm not a philosopher, so please don't debate the nature of rationality. I'm using the word rational to recognize that an irrational creator could easily create a universe with no universal or constant physical laws, and such a universe would be extremely unusual.)
I also believe that God had some goals in mind when he created the universe. One of these goals is that a being exist who has the capacity for free will. I could explain why God might want such creatures, but it's not entirely relavent to my argument here. If you're interested feel free to ask me.
These two ideas serve to set up a few statements that I believe explain the presence of four seemingly conflicting elements in our world: free will, suffering, a God who deplores suffering, and a God capable of ending suffering
1) God desires people to have free will. 2) The existence of free will opens the possibility that people can cause one another to suffer. 3) Any measure that would serve to ensure that people cannot cause suffering would invalidate free will. 4) In a rational universe, you cannot both have something possible and impossible. 4a) In other words, not even an omnipotent god could both restrain human action and allow for free will, because they are mutually exclusive. An irrational universe could allow for this, but we don't live in an irrational universe.
Therefore, suffering exists as an unfortunate consequence of an otherwise intentional aspect of human nature - free will. That is not to say that God approves of suffering, nor that he is incapable of ending suffering. Rather, I believe that God allows human beings to cause each other to suffer because he places greater value on the existence of free will than on having a universe free of the possibility of evil.
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.
I have to say this is probably the most well thought out and neutral post in this thread. We need more of these.
On March 06 2012 06:55 titanicnewbie wrote: I'd just like to share my beliefs on the matter. I've put a lot of thought into the relationship between Christianity and free will. Hopefully my perspective is helpful. (I refer specifically to Christianity because I recognize that non-religious people frequently make statements about religion in general, while actually referring to distinctively Christian beliefs / cultural norms. But I digress...)
I believe that when God created the universe, he built it on a series of physical laws and constants. I believe that God is a rational being, and therefore we should not be surprised to find that his creation operates according to rational rules. (I'm not a philosopher, so please don't debate the nature of rationality. I'm using the word rational to recognize that an irrational creator could easily create a universe with no universal or constant physical laws, and such a universe would be extremely unusual.)
I also believe that God had some goals in mind when he created the universe. One of these goals is that a being exist who has the capacity for free will. I could explain why God might want such creatures, but it's not entirely relavent to my argument here. If you're interested feel free to ask me.
These two ideas serve to set up a few statements that I believe explain the presence of four seemingly conflicting elements in our world: free will, suffering, a God who deplores suffering, and a God capable of ending suffering
1) God desires people to have free will. 2) The existence of free will opens the possibility that people can cause one another to suffer. 3) Any measure that would serve to ensure that people cannot cause suffering would invalidate free will. 4) In a rational universe, you cannot both have something possible and impossible. 4a) In other words, not even an omnipotent god could both restrain human action and allow for free will, because they are mutually exclusive. An irrational universe could allow for this, but we don't live in an irrational universe.
Therefore, suffering exists as an unfortunate consequence of an otherwise beneficial aspect of human nature - free will. That is not to say that God approves of suffering, nor that he is incapable of ending suffering. Rather, I believe that God allows human beings to cause each other to suffer because he places greater value on the existence of free will than on having a universe free of the possibility of evil.
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
At this point in time, there is no way to scientifically quantify "free will." It strikes me as slightly bizarre that the neurology has hardly been discussed here. Given that the brain is the root of our action (freely chosen or not), if you want to objectify anything you are arguing it needs to been done on a neurological level. That said, humanity's understanding of brain function and cognitive action is severely limited. In order to even scientifically evaluate free will we need something more than philosophy. The huge problem many people have with religions is that they simply aren't falsifiable. There is no way to ever prove them wrong (consequently, proving them correct is also impossible due to the lack of empirical data). That is not to say, however, that something is correct or incorrect simply because there is no way to prove it. In the case of free will, we might have the ability to operationally define it as a whole in the future. Maybe the brain will be understood sufficiently in 50 years time but until then free will is as unfalsifiable as anything beyond the realm of our universe. There is no answer and no way to obtain it.
I personally believe that we have free will. I feel that it's the same argument of presumed intelligence and consciousness. Can consciousness be proven? Absolutely not. It also cannot be disproven...not until psycho-physiology and neurocognition are significantly more progressed can this claim be tested. Intellectual dialog is pointless at this stage because it devolves into philosophy. The real heart of the issue lies amongst the natural sciences and they do not have the answer readily available at this time.
Saying that free will is an artifact of religion is the first mistake you bring up in the OP. It is incredibly common to see arguments which make assumptions that are easy to overlooked and is a personal pet peeve of mine. This is a narrow argument which allows for very little critical analysis without breaking the assumed statement's validity. Once you break it's presupposed basis, the logical fallacies inevitably must find their way into the argument.
Descartes' presents a similar idea with his famous philosophical statement: Cogito ergo sum; I think, therefore I am.
You can't prove it and you can't disprove it. The paradoxical nature of such ideas increases the inability to answer the question correctly. The chicken or the egg? I made the choice to do something but my brain instinctively began the action before I thought it. There must be causality for that initiation of action in the first place which means my brain processed and decided to do it. If we are not our own minds, what are we? That is all the philosophy I dare to entertain. It's a slippery slope to argue fervently for one or the other.
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
I hope I'm not disappointing you, but I have short answers to both of your questions.
1) Natural disasters occur as the result of completely intentional (by the creator) physical processes. There are some really excellent reasons that planets have tectonic plates, ask a geologist. And if you have tectonic plates, you're going to get earthquakes. I think that natural disasters aren't comparable to human-induced suffering like genocide. Frankly, I think that even a world without suffering would still have tragedies like this. It's not fair to expect God to make sure we're all safe and warm at night, else we accuse him of cruelty. God's kind of above that, and I think he's much more interested in allowing us to take care of one another than in doing it all himself.
2) God knows man. I couldn't say. I think that God gave us free will so that we could share in the drama of life. Yeah it's a sad story, but I'd say that God's not ready to end the story quite yet because he wants to see where the story goes.
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
I hope I'm not disappointing you, but I have short answers to both of your questions.
1) Natural disasters occur as the result of completely intentional (by the creator) physical processes. There are some really excellent reasons that planets have tectonic plates, ask a geologist. And if you have tectonic plates, you're going to get earthquakes. I think that natural disasters aren't comparable to human-induced suffering like genocide. Frankly, I think that even a world without suffering would still have tragedies like this. It's not fair to expect God to make sure we're all safe and warm at night, else we accuse him of cruelty. God's kind of above that, and I think he's much more interested in allowing us to take care of one another than in doing it all himself.
2) God knows man. I couldn't say. I think that God gave us free will so that we could share in the drama of life. Yeah it's a sad story, but I'd say that God's not ready to end the story quite yet because he wants to see where the story goes.
Please read: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the shorter On the miscarraige of all philosophical trials in theodicy by Kant (it's a chapter from a larger work).
Your theodicy is a very elementary one that has been discussed ad naseam that it just isn't worth talking about in this thread, in the way the thread has already moved on. I tell you this as a theology student.
On March 06 2012 07:19 koreasilver wrote:. Please read: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the shorter On the miscarraige of all philosophical trials in theodicy by Kant (it's a chapter from a larger work).
Your theodicy is a very elementary one that has been discussed ad naseam that it just isn't worth talking about in this thread, in the way the thread has already moved on. I tell you this as a theology student.
Thanks professor, for giving us a homework assignment instead of contributing to a discussion. You've basically put your elitist hat on and told me I'm childish. You haven't made a single persuasive or non-trivial comment in this entire thread (yes I checked), so why don't we try giving one another real feedback for a change?
How about you start by telling me why my beliefs are untenable? In your own words please.
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.
I have to say this is probably the most well thought out and neutral post in this thread. We need more of these.
The most well thought out and neutral?
All he's saying is that because he can't explain a behavior, it MUST not be determined. That's an extremely simplistic thought process, and it's been repeated in this thread since page one. Just because we are ignorant of the causes of something does not mean it is not caused.
But I get that you like the post because you like to believe in events which are neither determined nor arbitrary, whatever that could possibly mean...
In my opinion the whole debate on Free Will is worthless. Whether or not 'it' exists seems pretty irrelevant when nobody can explain what 'it' is specifically. Why normally rational people are unable to equate Free Will with concepts like the soul is beyond me. It's exactly the same. A Phlogiston Theory and nothing more.
"you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want"
Meaning: yes, it's your decision to move or eat. But you have no control over if you WANT to move or eat...and with "want" I don't mean the wish but the "trigger" that actually makes you move and eat exactly at the time when you do it.
I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
On March 06 2012 07:19 koreasilver wrote:. Please read: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the shorter On the miscarraige of all philosophical trials in theodicy by Kant (it's a chapter from a larger work).
Your theodicy is a very elementary one that has been discussed ad naseam that it just isn't worth talking about in this thread, in the way the thread has already moved on. I tell you this as a theology student.
Thanks professor, for giving us a homework assignment instead of contributing to a discussion. You've basically put your elitist hat on and told me I'm childish. You haven't made a single persuasive or non-trivial comment in this entire thread (yes I checked), so why don't we try giving one another real feedback for a change?
How about you start by telling me why my beliefs are untenable? In your own words please.
The argument that you made is hundreds of years old, and for anyone who studies theology / philosophy it's perhaps not the most fresh or interesting subject. Some rudimentary objections to your argument would be:
Gratuitous evil: some evil may be necessary in the world in order for free will to be possible, or, the best possible state of the world may not be entirely free of evil, but does there really need to be as much evil as there actually is in the world? For example, why did 6 million Jews have to die during the Holocaust? Why not 5 million or some smaller but still significant number (it seems churlish, sure, but still...)
Another object would go something like: Couldn't God both give people free will and make them exceptionally good people? Like, couldn't we all have free will but also make more good decisions (or even nothing but good decisions)?
That's only a really amateur I've-taken-a-few-phil-classes stab at some of the objections out there...
The argument that you made is hundreds of years old, and for anyone who studies theology / philosophy it's perhaps not the most fresh or interesting subject. Some rudimentary objections to your argument would be:
Gratuitous evil: some evil may be necessary in the world in order for free will to be possible, or, the best possible state of the world may not be entirely free of evil, but does there really need to be as much evil as there actually is in the world? For example, why did 6 million Jews have to die during the Holocaust? Why not 5 million or some smaller but still significant number (it seems churlish, sure, but still...)
Another object would go something like: Couldn't God both give people free will and make them exceptionally good people? Like, couldn't we all have free will but also make more good decisions (or even nothing but good decisions)?
That's only a really amateur I've-taken-a-few-phil-classes stab at some of the objections out there...
Thank you for at least expressing some tangible kind of disagreement. Personally I have some responses to those issues, and if you'd like to pursue the discussion I'd be happy to tell you. I'm posting now just to say that I appreciate this kind of discourse, rather than a knee-jerk "go read more theology noob" statement.
On March 06 2012 06:48 mcc wrote:But as far as I can tell in the multiple universe interpretation the universe diverges when quantum events occur, not when people make choices. Since our choices are macroscopic in nature and thus well "shielded" from quantum events, the universes do not actually diverge on our choices.
True, the consequences of a choice are a macroscopic event, but each macroscopic event is made of a large number of unitary quantum events (unless you are in a macroscopic quantum state, like a black hole or a superfluid, in which case I don't really know how you type your answers).
"shielding", you are thinking of decorrelation, but it is not the sole event type that creates different states in a multiple universe.
Universe still diverges in the absence of choice, but it also does when people make choices. Only requirement is that at least 1 physically coherent path allows each choice. (if I make a choice between posting this reply and turning into a jet to crash into the sun, there is probably no universe where I actually get to dance with the sunny chicks on the crash site, although ... <concentrates>)
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
But if any state of the mind is a state of neurons and if neurons only follow the laws of physic, there cannot be a free will. If free will is just an illusion, we can discuss it as if it is a real thing, while in fact there still is no free will in the sense that you decide freely. (Free in which sense? You decide what seems best to you.)
On March 06 2012 05:25 liberal wrote: In this thread, people who really, really want to believe that humans have some sort of mystical undefined "choice" and really want to be able to judge people for their behavior go through psychological jumping jacks and philosophical loop-de-loops to try and find some fault with logic itself in order to justify believing in something that has zero evidence and defies common sense.
It's the classic "god of the gaps" syndrome. Any area where there is even a shred of doubt, suddenly becomes the justification for embracing the most illogical and unjustified notions. This type of reasoning goes hand in hand with the "you can't prove X DOESN'T exist" type of arguments. The possibility of something being true is all they need to fully embrace it. If you can't prove there isn't a typewriter on mars, then we can choose to believe there is one, without any psychological qualms.
Which is why discussions even remotely related to religion always break down; you cannot reason with people who are intent on being unreasonable. You either seek truths based upon reason, evidence, and plausibility, or you seek ideas which make you feel comfortable with the world around you. Obviously no individual is a bastion of objectivity, but clearly some people are closer than others, and such people should recognize when they are fighting an unwinnable battle.
I have to disagree with you here. I don't think you know a lot about history and how the basics of logic and mind where "invented" in the classical antiquity. The same with the importance of mathematics and science in modern history. Our modern world view is very influenced by those concepts, but they're not the only and mb not even very accurate. They don't embody absolute truth. Let me explain that: Logic says: a thing cant be both, static and moved / free and determined, at least not at the same time and in the same regard. But first this presumes a physicalist world view in which physical things and objects exist, and second I don't think there has ever been a pyhscial thing that was static. Everything is constantly in motion. Our will could be determined and free at the same time, maybe partly determined, partly free. Our logic does not apply to the world itsself, its just concepts we impose on the world. We gotta agree on some things for practical reasons, but we shouldnt overspan our agreements. Causality for example is something most people agree on, but we should never overspan causality to possible experience that has yet to be made. Causality is a regulative principle and should never be made a constitutive principle. Our everyday talk and experience, for example, is a hint that we presume free will every day. The only way for a human beeing to act is by presuming its free. It's part of what makes humans human. In a certain sense, because humans can only act by presuming they're free, that kinda makes them free, at least in relation to practical experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism Unless we first define very exactly what the concept free will means, and even then, we might never come to an agreement. As I said, a will that would be totally independent from everything else could be free, but it could never be what I would call MY free will. Because to be MY will, my history and feelings and thought have(!) to have an influence and partly determine MY will. Freedom is not lawlessness, but a law.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
Is there free will? Yeah, probably, in the same way there's probably no God. We can't disprove it, but... lots of evidence points towards not needing God (or a lack of free will) to explain things.
I feel that there are only two options: predetermination and free will. If we can't agree on that, I'm open to arguments, but given that assumption, I see it rather absurd that free will couldn't be the truth.
My thinking is that human decisions are made based on the chemical compositions of our brains at the moment of a decision. There's a certain randomness to chemistry, what my old chem teacher used to call "the X-Factor" -- that is, that strange nature of chemistry that results in the same experiment, repeated over and over and over again, yielding slightly different results each time. Anyone with a rudimentary chemistry education will understand that it's not quite an exact science, and relies on factors such as entropy, which is actually defined as randomness.
So there's absolutely no way to predict exactly what decision someone will make, even giving the chemistry of their mind at the time, without having fundamental control of the very basics of chemistry; the orientations of particles, their PRECISE amounts, even the statistics behind quantum mechanics. It's all a lot to deal with.
If there's nothing in the universe that possess such control, then there's surely not predetermination to human actions -- thus, the only remaining option is free will, as I stated.
As a side note, the universe could technically be a simulation -- we have nothing at all to suggest one way or the other that we are or aren't. If we are it would likely very easy for our simulators to control us perfectly, though the act of doing so is a little tedious and I wouldn't expect they'd go through the trouble to detail plans for each and every one of us. You need only to look at our own simulations of life, rudimentary as they may be, to see how arduous and unnecessary it is to predetermine the lives of each simulation.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
Like right now. You chose to respond to me. You chose to type certain words. Even if you were reacting to stimuli, there was nothing compelling you to 1) read 2) respond by typing 3) respond coherently. And furthermore respond to an argument about how the nature of the universe works.
It's not a freedom from physical laws so much as there is a conscious will that is able to make decisions- and we can learn a lot about the brain from brain activity. We can tell that you are dreaming based on brain activity, we can tell that you are thinking. But we actually have to talk to you to find out what the dream was or what you were specifically thinking about. We react to stimuli, our body operates within physical laws, we have fight or flight responses. All true. But we also discover, create, theorize, choose to play a video game, choose to create a video game, choose to hack a video game, choose create art, choose to appreciate art, choose to critique art, or choose to vandalize art.
If we have a concept of free will despite there being no free will than it is a very powerful delusion. It's impossible to even go to work without operating under the assumption of free will. When the alarm goes, will you hit snooze? When you get up what will you wear, what will you eat? Will you eat? Will you go to work at all? Will pick the shortest route, will you speed? Will you run a red light or stop? Will you drive in the opposite lane? Will you drive on the sidewalk? Will you drive off the bridge? Hundreds of decisions, some of them rote, some based on the past, some of them more urgent. And if any point you stop to try and explain how this is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual then you have made the choice to stop and think about how it is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual. And then you can choose to think about how you are thinking about your thinking...
The concept of free will so dominates the way we live our lives that it would be impossible to function without it. And if it is a delusion then it is such a great delusion, that we have no reason to trust any other of observations of sight, smell, etc because it is all filtered through this entirely deluded brain of ours. So we have no way knowing whether our universe is deterministic because our means of knowing is faulty. And certainly something like emotions can be faulty. But my argument that this is SUCH a great delusion that it throws our entire thought process into question.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
Except we don't have to decide one way or another. As long as you think it's possible that free will* exists you will act as if it did, in every situation.
*I mean the kind of free will that's incompatible with determinism, not fake-free will.
scene from waking life about free will. pretty good movie if you guys haven't seen it. i think this topic should be raised more in the debate with religion as it seems the basis of it yet how can someone be judged if they had no control over their actions in the first place?
There is no definitive answer but there are three very clearly conditioned paths.
If you believe in the divine nature of the universe, but do not believe in a "humanoid" god, free will is self-evident.
If you do not believe in the divine nature of the universe, you "god" is the known laws of the universe. From what I can infer from this thread they do not confirm free will, which according to "logic" makes it, at this time, successfully refuted.
If you do believe in the divine nature of the universe governed by a "humanoid" god, there is no free will because the godhead knows what you are doing beforehand so you can't change it no matter how much you will.
Due to insurmountable differences between the basic postulates of these three deeply ingrained views productive discussion on the subject is next to impossible.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change.
Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis
Also note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense.
not to rub anyone the wrong way but this sounds like some way for people to justify why they did not end up where they wanted in life. "oh well its not fair to say im lazy and not a millionaire because the universe made it so" and also how does this even make sense, even if my choices are all predetermined I cant see the future to know what they are so they feel like i am the one choosing anyway, which kinda makes it still seem like free will?
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
Like right now. You chose to respond to me. You chose to type certain words. Even if you were reacting to stimuli, there was nothing compelling you to 1) read 2) respond 3) respond coherently. And furthermore respond to an argument about how the nature of the universe works.
It's not a freedom from physical laws so much as there is a conscious will that is able to make decisions- and we can learn a lot about the brain from brain activity. We can tell that you are dreaming based on brain activity, we can tell that you are thinking. But we actually have to talk to you to find out what the dream was or what you were specifically thinking about. We react to stimuli, our body operates within physical laws, we have fight or flight responses. All true. But we also discover, create, theorize, choose to play a video game, choose to create a video game, choose to hack a video game, choose create art, choose to appreciate art, choose to critique art, or choose to vandalize art.
If we have a concept of free will despite there being no free will than it is a very powerful delusion. It's impossible to even got to work without operating under the assumption of free will. When the alarm goes, will you hit snooze? When you get up what will you wear, what will you eat? Will you eat? Will you go to work at all? Will pick the shortest route, will you speed? Will you run a red light or stop? Will you drive in the opposite lane? Will you drive on the sidewalk? Will you drive off the bridge? Hundreds of decisions, some of them rote, some based on the past, some of them more urgent. And if any point you stop to try and explain how this is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual then you have made the choice to stop and think about how it is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual. And then you can choose to think about how you are thinking about your thinking...
The concept of free will so dominates the way we live our lives that it would be impossible to function without it. And if it is a delusion then it is such a great delusion, that we have no reason to trust any other of observations of sight, smell, etc because it is all filtered through this entirely deluded brain of ours. So we have no way knowing whether our universe is deterministic because our means of knowing is faulty. And certainly something like emotions can be faulty. But my argument that this is SUCH a great delusion that it throws our entire thought process into question.
Well the classic determinist arguments are generally based upon cause and effect. The response would be that you read, responded and did so coherently as effects of causes you may not be aware of. You read because you wanted to read, you wanted to read because you were bored, you were bored because you just finished the game you were playing, and so on for a very, very long time, except that it would be much more complex and involve more than one cause each step. It is in effect the claim that -- random swirls and quantum physics aside -- everything that happens can in principle be traced back to a cause or set of causes, which were all caused in turn by other causes, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. A vast web of chains, if you will. People run into this problem when they come to have faith in the infallibility of the basic tenets of scientific investigation.
On March 05 2012 22:12 knatt wrote: Are you telling me that I don't have control over my own actions? If what you say is true, then I would define it as "fate". I don't believe in fate, though I can't prove that it doesn't exist. But I'd rather think that the world is unpredictable because it's more fun that way.
I think this sums up the general idea of how I feel about this thread.
I think that determinism really leads to the conclusion that I am simply a product of my environment (profound... right ^^ ). Whether this is true or not, I just do not like the idea. I also find (IMO) that it really makes holding someone responsible for his/her moral decisions ridiculous. If I am just a product of my environment, how can I be judged according to what is ultimately my environments problem.
Now, I do think that people must be held responsible for their actions. Whether I am right or wrong about this, I think that the only way that this is logically and reasonably possible is with free will.
Besides it really is more fun from a free will perspective... I can hope for something and it "might" happen.
Of course, I refrain from making the statement that it must be one or the other. I am just biased to lean towards the freewill side of things
Edited: Response to another post
On March 06 2012 08:32 Kickboxer wrote: There is no definitive answer but there are three very clearly conditioned paths.
If you believe in the divine nature of the universe, but do not believe in a "humanoid" god, free will is self-evident.
If you do not believe in the divine nature of the universe, you "god" is the known laws of the universe. From what I can infer from this thread they do not confirm free will, which according to "logic" makes it, at this time, successfully refuted.
If you do believe in the divine nature of the universe governed by a "humanoid" god, there is no free will because the godhead knows what you are doing beforehand so you can't change it no matter how much you will.
Due to insurmountable differences between the basic postulates of these three deeply ingrained views productive discussion on the subject is next to impossible.
Kickboxer, I think this is a good point. I really think that our religious biases (or lack thereof) influence our opinions on the matter no matter how much we try to discuss it from a logical point of view.
I always see free will as something like the Matrix (what a unique movie). There could be some "creator" out there who keeps laws of physics intact, but messes with ever so slight portions of the code (i.e. our thoughts) and this completely changes the whole timeline of events in a way we cannot even fathom. In essence, free will is just the by-product of interference from this "creator." If there was any way to explain this, I think it would be that this "creator" just messes with the probabilities of things in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe jumbling the events of things around so that they still follow the laws of physics (on the quantum level), but the order is changed to bring about the desired effect of the "creator's" interference.
Let us take a coin for example. If we flip the coin, it is a 50/50 guess on which side it would land. However, a person can accurately figure this out through careful calculations about the speed of the flip, position from which it was flipped, crosswind, etc.
That can also apply to humans. The coin's fate is predetermined and so is the fate of humans.
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
I hope I'm not disappointing you, but I have short answers to both of your questions.
1) Natural disasters occur as the result of completely intentional (by the creator) physical processes. There are some really excellent reasons that planets have tectonic plates, ask a geologist. And if you have tectonic plates, you're going to get earthquakes. I think that natural disasters aren't comparable to human-induced suffering like genocide. Frankly, I think that even a world without suffering would still have tragedies like this. It's not fair to expect God to make sure we're all safe and warm at night, else we accuse him of cruelty. God's kind of above that, and I think he's much more interested in allowing us to take care of one another than in doing it all himself.
2) God knows man. I couldn't say. I think that God gave us free will so that we could share in the drama of life. Yeah it's a sad story, but I'd say that God's not ready to end the story quite yet because he wants to see where the story goes.
That just leaves you open to a question : Why should we worship such a god that clearly does not share human moral values with us ? He is an evil entity from the point of view of our own values and saying that he is above that does not solve it as his moral values are of no concern to us. Our moral values are what matters to us. Of course you can always proclaim he is not able to prevent the disasters, but then it seems he is just a powerful, but not too much, entity.
My point is that preventing earthquakes and tsunamis is easily in his power and allowing them to happen he is violating human moral code on incredible scale, thus being evil. Whatever reasons he has for allowing them to happen (so we can help ourselves, so we can suffer, because he enjoys it) are not important, he is evil from a point of view of our morality and that is what is important for us humans.
There are ways you can argue out of it in some way, but free will argument is not an excuse. Free will is clearly compatible with the world without massive natural disasters.
I once heard an argument stating that People never do things "out of the goodness of their heart"
The rationale is that, since you know you will be rewarded for it with a "thanks" or any other sort of commendation, that is the real reason you do it. Thus, people are not really "nice" after all, they've just caught on and became aware of the future rewards. The OP delves a little more into the physiology and intricacies of it all, but if you look really deep, I believe there is only free will at young childhood.
When you are a baby, you do random things that any adult would consider stupid. These babies have free will, and aren't limited to any consequence whatsoever. They can touch a hot stove because they dont know what happens. After touching the hot stove, however, they learn it does not feel good to touch it, and that is a natural chemical response. As their life goes on, they become restricted by their past experiences and the body's chemical urges to "not get hurt."
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
I hope I'm not disappointing you, but I have short answers to both of your questions.
1) Natural disasters occur as the result of completely intentional (by the creator) physical processes. There are some really excellent reasons that planets have tectonic plates, ask a geologist. And if you have tectonic plates, you're going to get earthquakes. I think that natural disasters aren't comparable to human-induced suffering like genocide. Frankly, I think that even a world without suffering would still have tragedies like this. It's not fair to expect God to make sure we're all safe and warm at night, else we accuse him of cruelty. God's kind of above that, and I think he's much more interested in allowing us to take care of one another than in doing it all himself.
2) God knows man. I couldn't say. I think that God gave us free will so that we could share in the drama of life. Yeah it's a sad story, but I'd say that God's not ready to end the story quite yet because he wants to see where the story goes.
That just leaves you open to a question : Why should we worship such a god that clearly does not share human moral values with us ? He is an evil entity from the point of view of our own values and saying that he is above that does not solve it as his moral values are of no concern to us. Our moral values are what matters to us. Of course you can always proclaim he is not able to prevent the disasters, but then it seems he is just a powerful, but not too much, entity.
My point is that preventing earthquakes and tsunamis is easily in his power and allowing them to happen he is violating human moral code on incredible scale, thus being evil. Whatever reasons he has for allowing them to happen (so we can help ourselves, so we can suffer, because he enjoys it) are not important, he is evil from a point of view of our morality and that is what is important for us humans.
There are ways you can argue out of it in some way, but free will argument is not an excuse. Free will is clearly compatible with the world without massive natural disasters.
perhaps it is our values and morals which are skewed, not His. perhaps He values other things higher than the continuation of life. i for one know that i would not want to live forever, and if i don't want to live forever as i am, death is the only answer to that question. besides that, do not assume that your view of morality is the same as everyone's or that those who hold different views are necessarily evil.
i do not think it is necessarily evil to not prevent a natural occurrence from happening. for one, many natural occurrences, such as hurricanes, have a completely necessary purpose besides their destructiveness. without hurricanes, vast stretches of America would be barren desert. i suppose we could then argue that He should have made the world in such a way that some things didn't have to die for some things to live, but i think that is too complicated an argument to get into here.
i hope this isn't seen as completely off-topic though. seems to be borderline, so i'll just leave it at that.
Well it's kind of simple really. What determines our choices are our desires, and they are not the product of our own choices. Did I choose to like computer games? Did I really sit down and think: "hmm do I want to like this, or don't I?" The answer is no. And as long as our choices are determined by what preferences we accidentally wind up having (pretty sure I would not like videogames If I was born and raised in Ethiopia), free will is kind of impossible. To speak of free will is problematic in two ways; either the definition is too vague to be meaningful or it's really specific and thus a contradiction. I have yet to find a sufficient definition of free will that doesn't generate a contradiction.
Either the world is fully determined or it isn't. If it isn't fully determined then there must be a factor of chance. Neither randomized events nor determined ones can constitute a universe that allows free will to exist.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
If what you say is true, then people would not have any control over a single thing they did in life ever. Except people do have choices in life. They are faced with millions of choices and these choices are subject to reason. Reasonably, your "decision to move" is your will, you have it right at the front of this chain of command. How do you describe a contradictory post and all together moot your own point? The mind is a complex feature that noone knows enough about to adiquitely describe a scenerio such as ones life being pre-determined. People have been debating this forever and both sides agree that there are some form of indeterminism is true! According to logic, then if experts in the area all agree that indeterminism exists how in the hell can you turn around and say it doesn't? Whereas, determinism has little to no factual backing and tons of theories floating with open ends left unproven.
"i suppose we could then argue that He should have made the world in such a way that some things didn't have to die for some things to live, but i think that is too complicated an argument to get into here. "
It really isn't too complicated. Natural disasters cause great pain to humans and animals and should not exist in a world where an omnipotent good god exists.
On March 06 2012 08:56 iLose4u wrote: "i suppose we could then argue that He should have made the world in such a way that some things didn't have to die for some things to live, but i think that is too complicated an argument to get into here. "
It really isn't too complicated. Natural disasters cause great pain to humans and animals and should not exist in a world where an omnipotent good god exists.
i said it is complicated because then we get into the argument of human actions that may or may not have caused such things to come into being in the first place. assuming the garden of eden story to be a metaphor, one can still see how it is an explanation of the idea of human failure that leads to such things.
but as i said, this is treading the line of being off-topic and besides will almost invariably end up causing emotional outbursts and no one wants that.
I didn't mean to say there are no influencing factors. I kinda skimmed through it with my bipolar example, but humans don't exist in vacuum. We are influenced by a variety of things, genetics, automatic biological responses, medical condition, personal history, family history etc. Some of them can limit your range of choice, sometimes severely so. But despite all that we still have choice.
The artist has a very wide selection of media to use, a wide range of subjects to depict, and multiple choices to abandon the project or to cover over it. It becomes quite nonsensical to think that the forces of nature conspired to create the Mona Lisa or that the David statue was the result of random firings of neurons with causation going back since... time immemorial? Certainly there are outside influences- what if da Vinci's parents had been killed prior to his birth? Or even the artistic style of artists is often influenced by that of the past or their contemporaries. But at some point da Vinci had to sit down and create something and maybe even push the art into new territory.
And while there seems to be a compelling drive in humans to create- why that painting, why that woman, why those colours, why that texture, why that detailed, why that style, why that long (or short) to create. I don't see how you're going to find all the hidden causes and effects that eradicates the volition of da Vinci the painter. It starts sounding like Freud's unconscious mind. If everything is the effect of hidden processes and cause and effects (hidden by the facade of free will) then how does anyone break from of the deterministic processes in order to discover them? We* are still relying upon the deterministic processes to make our* discoveries. How do we get the view from the 'outside' as it were?
*Although more accurately there would be no collective we- just atoms and cells working together to from the so-called 'I" amongst the 'others'
On March 06 2012 08:56 iLose4u wrote: "i suppose we could then argue that He should have made the world in such a way that some things didn't have to die for some things to live, but i think that is too complicated an argument to get into here. "
It really isn't too complicated. Natural disasters cause great pain to humans and animals and should not exist in a world where an omnipotent good god exists.
I feel like your definition of good is the problem. It is relative, and it always will be. This God could have been great in ancient cultures, but now it is just bad or mean or evil. Views change... so unless you have some kind of absolute standard to compare from you end up just running around in circles saying whether something is good or bad according to the current standard. You can't judge an omnipotent God against a changing standard... It just doesn't make sense.
I didn't mean to say there are no influencing factors. I kinda skimmed through it with my bipolar example, but humans don't exist in vacuum. We are influenced by a variety of things, genetics, automatic biological responses, medical condition, personal history, family history etc. Some of them can limit your range of choice, sometimes severely so. But despite all that we still have choice.
The artist has a very wide selection of media to use, a wide range of subjects to depict, and multiple choices to abandon the project or to cover over it. It becomes quite nonsensical to think that the forces of nature conspired to create the Mona Lisa or that the random firings of neurons with causation going back since... time immemorial ? Certainly there are outside influences- what if da Vinci's parents had been killed prior to his birth? Or even the artistic style of artists is often influenced by that of the past or their contemporaries. But at some point da Vinci had to sit down and create something and maybe even push the art into new territory.
And while there seems to be a compelling drive in humans to create- why that painting, why that woman, why those colours, why that texture, why that detailed, why that style, why that long (or short). I don't see how you're going to find all the hidden causes and effects that eradicates the volition of da Vinci the painter. It starts sounding like Freud's unconscious mind. If everything is the effect of hidden processes and cause and effects (hidden by the facade of free will) then how does anyone break from of the deterministic processes in order to discover them? We* are still relying upon the deterministic processes to make our* discoveries. How do we get the view from the 'outside' as it were?
*Although more accurately there would be no collective we- just atoms and cells working together to from the so-called 'I" amongst the 'others'
Once again, you are using your own ignorance of why those colors were chosen, why that painting was chosen, as an argument that free will exists. That isn't valid, because ignorance of the causes does not mean causes don't exist.
You cannot say that behavior is caused as far as our understanding can go, and then as soon as our understanding breaks down jump in the opposite direction and say "ok now we are choosing." That's exactly what you are doing when you say that there are SOME influences on behavior.
If you accept that SOME behavior is determined, because you can clearly see instances when behavior was determined by environment or biology or whatever, then it's simply intellectually dishonest to say that in the cases where we don't understand the causes, we should assume that free will exists. That's classic "god of the gaps" type logic, where any gap in our scientific understanding is jumped on by religious people as proof that god exists.
"Don't know what caused the big bang? Well then god did it." "Don't know why that painter chose that color? Well then it was free will." Ignorance of the causes is not evidence, it's just ignorance of the causes.
The fact that you want to believe in some notion of uncontrolled beauty or creativity or whatever also isn't a valid argument against determinism. Truth isn't dictated by our romantic desires of the world. Mankind tried to make itself the center of the universe, and stifled evidence that came out to the contrary. We should not do the same thing with neuroscience.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
No, act of debating does not require any free agency. I might be debating with you because it causes me pleasure, not because it is in any way meaningful behaviour. The burden of proof is upon you to show the mystical "somehow" mechanism you say exists actually exists. There is nothing observed that could be used as evidence of such as far as I know.
Also free will has nothing to do with consciousness. Eliminating one does not affect the other.
Of course you can do without this mystical free will and still be able to conclude that free will exists. You just need to abandon the strange notion that determinism does cause debates to be illusions or that there is some real clear divide between mind and body. There is none. You are a deterministic biological machine, universe might be non-deterministic, but you are. If you disagree please show me any evidence of such a mechanism in nature that would enable for it to be so, other than "because otherwise I would feel bad".
Because in the end by being deterministic machine, what actually changes ? Did you stop being yourself, did you stop being responsible for your actions ? Of course not, you are still acting on your own volition. You are still an independent entity. You just have knowledge that those acts are determined by your history and current environment. But that does not mean the future is determined, just that if put in the same situation you would behave the same. Nothing less nothing more. But since you are learning entity no two situations are ever the same. Yes, your behaviour in them is in a sense predetermined, but why does it matter ? Apart from evidently that thought depressing you, what is wrong with it ? Life is meaningless process of replication ? Of course it is. Does it change my life , no, why should it. I already knew that when I was 10 and fully realized that god does not exist. I am not assigning meaning to my actions based on their mystical cosmic meaningfulness, but based on how I feel about them and for that free will is completely unnecessary.
In particular I never engage in debates to actually convince anyone. I do that because I irrationally and emotionally like debating and to clarify my own views. Changing views of other people by means of rational debate is foolish endeavor in most circumstances.
On March 06 2012 08:45 Housemd wrote: I never believed in free will.
Let us take a coin for example. If we flip the coin, it is a 50/50 guess on which side it would land. However, a person can accurately figure this out through careful calculations about the speed of the flip, position from which it was flipped, crosswind, etc.
That can also apply to humans. The coin's fate is predetermined and so is the fate of humans.
That is wrong, the coins fate is determined by the human, the fact that the coin is a coin is a human decision. You have to understand that we apply the concepts to the universe. We can say we never flipped a coin or that the coin has 2 heads or 2 tails you have to understand that everything is right as long as it is possible to belive in it. Humans live in their own virtual world. Their concepts makes their world. You see their society, religion, nations, money, its all virtual it is all made up and not real in the universe itself. It is an illusion that the humans created and witch seems to be the natural habitat of them. Just for one moment say it slowly, in reality the real reality there are no such things as described by religion, i reality, there are no nations, there are no borders, in reality there is no money and deep down you know its true or some of you may understand this on the surface but can not grasp the deeper meaning of it. Meditate about this and maybe you will get a small fraction of understanding what it really means.
If you are a pure scientist how do you explain emotion, something that you can feel, is it moving particles, but why do moving particles feel ? Are there even laws ? Laws are a construct of the humans as they construct laws everywhere. They are an illusion. Maybe there are no laws but the laws that the humans have created.
It is so difficult to make you understand and tell you the world how I experience it and see it, it is beautiful, it is closer to the world as it is and a step back from the virtual world that humans created. I do not know how to explain it to you, maybe you can get a glimmer or small grasp of it due to the limitiations that nearly all of the humans have.
Knowing this and thinking about this you will get to know an answer to the question about free will.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
If what you say is true, then people would not have any control over a single thing they did in life ever. Except people do have choices in life. They are faced with millions of choices and these choices are subject to reason. Reasonably, your "decision to move" is your will, you have it right at the front of this chain of command. How do you describe a contradictory post and all together moot your own point? The mind is a complex feature that noone knows enough about to adiquitely describe a scenerio such as ones life being pre-determined. People have been debating this forever and both sides agree that there are some form of indeterminism is true! According to logic, then if experts in the area all agree that indeterminism exists how in the hell can you turn around and say it doesn't? Whereas, determinism has little to no factual backing and tons of theories floating with open ends left unproven.
Well what indicates that there is a free will, that choices are something other than for example results of your genes and your environment? Also, complete determinism would mean there is logically no free will but a lack of a determined universe would not indicate an existence of free will. Regardless of how random things might be it wouldn't make a choice you make something other than the result of a chain of events. So using deterministic reasoning to find indications for the existence of free will probably not work.
On March 06 2012 06:48 mcc wrote:But as far as I can tell in the multiple universe interpretation the universe diverges when quantum events occur, not when people make choices. Since our choices are macroscopic in nature and thus well "shielded" from quantum events, the universes do not actually diverge on our choices.
True, the consequences of a choice are a macroscopic event, but each macroscopic event is made of a large number of unitary quantum events (unless you are in a macroscopic quantum state, like a black hole or a superfluid, in which case I don't really know how you type your answers).
"shielding", you are thinking of decorrelation, but it is not the sole event type that creates different states in a multiple universe.
Universe still diverges in the absence of choice, but it also does when people make choices. Only requirement is that at least 1 physically coherent path allows each choice. (if I make a choice between posting this reply and turning into a jet to crash into the sun, there is probably no universe where I actually get to dance with the sunny chicks on the crash site, although ... <concentrates>)
Ah, so you are actually postulating that human choice is quantum-level thing under control of the agent of that choice. Then you would be correct, but then you are not just working with multiple universe interpretation, but also adding your own additional assumptions into the mix. Just subscribing to the multiple universe interpretation does not give you free will. The assumption that "human choice is quantum-level thing under control of the agent of that choice" is what gives you free will, but you do not need multiple universe interpretation for that. You can easily postulate that without it.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
Like right now. You chose to respond to me. You chose to type certain words. Even if you were reacting to stimuli, there was nothing compelling you to 1) read 2) respond by typing 3) respond coherently. And furthermore respond to an argument about how the nature of the universe works.
It's not a freedom from physical laws so much as there is a conscious will that is able to make decisions- and we can learn a lot about the brain from brain activity. We can tell that you are dreaming based on brain activity, we can tell that you are thinking. But we actually have to talk to you to find out what the dream was or what you were specifically thinking about. We react to stimuli, our body operates within physical laws, we have fight or flight responses. All true. But we also discover, create, theorize, choose to play a video game, choose to create a video game, choose to hack a video game, choose create art, choose to appreciate art, choose to critique art, or choose to vandalize art.
If we have a concept of free will despite there being no free will than it is a very powerful delusion. It's impossible to even go to work without operating under the assumption of free will. When the alarm goes, will you hit snooze? Whe...................
Maybe all these decisions you mentioned, and the words I'm choosing for this reply, aren't decided with "free will" but instead are determined by your neuroanatomy (structure, state, memories, what other brain areas are currently doing, etc) and the environment (stimuli you're experiencing, associations, maybe even the position you're sitting in). I speculate that the brain has a way to compile various courses of action (or thoughts) and that one action eventually wins over, so even if you spent a lot of time remuminating about a decision, the choice that is made is determined by all the variables that are in play instead of a free will. It would be interesting to understand why it takes time to make a decision at times, what is actually going on in the brain during that time.
The artist has a very wide selection of media to use, a wide range of subjects to depict, and multiple choices to abandon the project or to cover over it. It becomes quite nonsensical to think that the forces of nature conspired to create the Mona Lisa or that the random firings of neurons with causation going back since... time immemorial ? Certainly there are outside influences- what if da Vinci's parents had been killed prior to his birth? Or even the artistic style of artists is often influenced by that of the past or their contemporaries. But at some point da Vinci had to sit down and create something and maybe even push the art into new territory.
But why couldn't every decision and thought of an artist be determined by everything that preceded it? It's not random firing, the brain is programmed and incredibly complex, it is capable to set goals and find the means to achieve them, and ultimately certain decisions physically win, and would've always won if all the circumstances were exactly the same. It does seem like we take conscious and deliberate decisions and IMO it is because we are aware of the other decisions that are or were available, but ultimately the action that was taken was determined and unescapable at that moment.
If everything is the effect of hidden processes and cause and effects (hidden by the facade of free will) then how does anyone break from of the deterministic processes in order to discover them? We* are still relying upon the deterministic processes to make our* discoveries. How do we get the view from the 'outside' as it were?
Why do we need to break from the deterministic processes in order to discover them?
On March 06 2012 08:45 Housemd wrote: I never believed in free will.
Let us take a coin for example. If we flip the coin, it is a 50/50 guess on which side it would land. However, a person can accurately figure this out through careful calculations about the speed of the flip, position from which it was flipped, crosswind, etc.
That can also apply to humans. The coin's fate is predetermined and so is the fate of humans.
i reality, there are no nations, there are no borders, in reality there is no money and deep down you know its true or some of you may understand this on the surface but can not grasp the deeper meaning of it. Meditate about this and maybe you will get a small fraction of understanding what it really means.
in reality there are nations and borders and there is certainly money. just because these things only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they are not real.
Are there even laws ? Laws are a construct of the humans as they construct laws everywhere. They are an illusion. Maybe there are no laws but the laws that the humans have created.
again, just because they only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they don't exist. they absolutely exist, just as the words you are using exist. they would have no meaning if we didn't give them meaning, but since we do give them meaning they do have meaning. to say that the meaning we give them is an illusion is to say that you shouldn't be able to understand these words, but you do. you can't help but understand them now that you have learned them. the universe itself gives no meaning, only thinking beings can give meaning. a painting exists, even before it is painted, as long as it is conceived by the painter. it exists as an idea. to say that ideas don't exist in some form is simply wrong.
I do not know how to explain it to you, maybe you can get a glimmer or small grasp of it due to the limitiations that nearly all of the humans have.
i have noticed in my experience that things that are impossible to explain because of the listener's "limitations" are often just hard to explain because they have no real explanation.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change.
Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis
Also note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense.
Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit".
Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
On March 06 2012 08:47 mcc wrote: That just leaves you open to a question : Why should we worship such a god that clearly does not share human moral values with us ? He is an evil entity from the point of view of our own values and saying that he is above that does not solve it as his moral values are of no concern to us. Our moral values are what matters to us. Of course you can always proclaim he is not able to prevent the disasters, but then it seems he is just a powerful, but not too much, entity.
My point is that preventing earthquakes and tsunamis is easily in his power and allowing them to happen he is violating human moral code on incredible scale, thus being evil. Whatever reasons he has for allowing them to happen (so we can help ourselves, so we can suffer, because he enjoys it) are not important, he is evil from a point of view of our morality and that is what is important for us humans.
There are ways you can argue out of it in some way, but free will argument is not an excuse. Free will is clearly compatible with the world without massive natural disasters.
I think the key issue in your statement is here:
On March 06 2012 08:47 mcc wrote: My point is that preventing earthquakes and tsunamis is easily in his power and allowing them to happen he is violating human moral code on incredible scale, thus being evil.
I would argue that death as a consequence of natural events is not evil. I agree that we as human beings find natural disasters to be tragic, but tragedy and evil are not one and the same. I could (stand up and then) fall and break my leg right now. I'd like to think that most people would agree that it's a tragic thing, but I'm also alone in a room right now with nobody around me. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call that evil.
Is a god who allows his creation to die (or experience other tragedy, such as my imaginary broken leg) evil by definition? Your statement highlighted above hinges on that idea. And I would disagree with you.
To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random, and how heavily they influence our behaviour. The weather is an easy example, we have no control over the weather, you can never predict its patterns exactly, and so many of our daily decisions hinge on temperature, whether it rains or not and so on. There are more possible explanations than free will or fate, and both of those explanations don't make sense within our scientific understanding of the world.
Then, to the people talking about how science doesn't preach absolute truth: You don't understand what science is in the first place. Look up falsificationism and you'll get some idea; basically science is about making observations and through logical deductions try to make the best possible prediction about what mechanic is behind our observations. Can science ever prove something 100% correct this way? No, it can per definition NEVER be 100% correct. But neither can anything else.
I didn't mean to say there are no influencing factors. I kinda skimmed through it with my bipolar example, but humans don't exist in vacuum. We are influenced by a variety of things, genetics, automatic biological responses, medical condition, personal history, family history etc. Some of them can limit your range of choice, sometimes severely so. But despite all that we still have choice.
The artist has a very wide selection of media to use, a wide range of subjects to depict, and multiple choices to abandon the project or to cover over it. It becomes quite nonsensical to think that the forces of nature conspired to create the Mona Lisa or that the random firings of neurons with causation going back since... time immemorial ? Certainly there are outside influences- what if da Vinci's parents had been killed prior to his birth? Or even the artistic style of artists is often influenced by that of the past or their contemporaries. But at some point da Vinci had to sit down and create something and maybe even push the art into new territory.
And while there seems to be a compelling drive in humans to create- why that painting, why that woman, why those colours, why that texture, why that detailed, why that style, why that long (or short). I don't see how you're going to find all the hidden causes and effects that eradicates the volition of da Vinci the painter. It starts sounding like Freud's unconscious mind. If everything is the effect of hidden processes and cause and effects (hidden by the facade of free will) then how does anyone break from of the deterministic processes in order to discover them? We* are still relying upon the deterministic processes to make our* discoveries. How do we get the view from the 'outside' as it were?
*Although more accurately there would be no collective we- just atoms and cells working together to from the so-called 'I" amongst the 'others'
Once again, you are using your own ignorance of why those colors were chosen, why that painting was chosen, as an argument that free will exists. That isn't valid, because ignorance of the causes does not mean causes don't exist.
You cannot say that behavior is caused as far as our understanding can go, and then as soon as our understanding breaks down jump in the opposite direction and say "ok now we are choosing." That's exactly what you are doing when you say that there are SOME influences on behavior.
If you accept that SOME behavior is determined, because you can clearly see instances when behavior was determined by environment or biology or whatever, then it's simply intellectually dishonest to say that in the cases where we don't understand the causes, we should assume that free will exists. That's classic "god of the gaps" type logic, where any gap in our scientific understanding is jumped on by religious people as proof that god exists.
"Don't know what caused the big bang? Well then god did it." "Don't know why that painter chose that color? Well then it was free will." Ignorance of the causes is not evidence, it's just ignorance of the causes.
The fact that you want to believe in some notion of uncontrolled beauty or creativity or whatever also isn't a valid argument against determinism. Truth isn't dictated by our romantic desires of the world. Mankind tried to make itself the center of the universe, and stifled evidence that came out to the contrary. We should not do the same thing with neuroscience.
Truth is and has always been dictated by our romantic desires of the world. There are all kinds of questionable assumptions afoot. Truth sounds like it should be an objective affair, but how can a subject make objective claims? We can never get beyond ourselves; there is no view from nowhere. The best we can hope for is inter-subjective agreement, and how can that be truth? Even if there are truths out there, how can we know them? Doesn't knowing require certainty, and doesn't certainty appear quite impossible to have? How much sense does it make to say that "I know X, but I am not certain that X"? There's a whole literature on this, and at the end of the day it fails to provide a satisfactory answer. And don't get me started on science's claim on truth. Its epistemology is incredibly shaky. Scientists haven't even solved Hume's problem of induction, which was proposed hundreds of years ago to show that all generalizing laws of cause and effect based upon experience are deeply irrational. They can't even demonstrate that there are such things as causes and effects, as opposed to phenomena that appear together repeatedly!
If you define free will as the the ability to "have done otherwise", it's tough to reconcile with modern science, but that doesn't make it false. Personally I think it's a rather fruitless discussion, and one we'd be better off replacing with the question of the value of belief in free will, which such arguments strive to undermine.
On March 06 2012 08:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: not to rub anyone the wrong way but this sounds like some way for people to justify why they did not end up where they wanted in life. "oh well its not fair to say im lazy and not a millionaire because the universe made it so" and also how does this even make sense, even if my choices are all predetermined I cant see the future to know what they are so they feel like i am the one choosing anyway, which kinda makes it still seem like free will?
That is because there is no mystical "I can choose whatever by magical means in whatever situation I am in"-free-will. There is on the other hand the free will you just described. Saying that choices are predetermined is not entirely correct. You are deterministic machine, but future is not yet happened and the environment is possibly not deterministic, so your future is not really predetermined, just in a sense.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random, and how heavily they influence our behaviour. The weather is an easy example, we have no control over the weather, you can never predict its patterns exactly, and so many of our daily decisions hinge on temperature, whether it rains or not and so on. There are more possible explanations than free will or fate, and both of those explanations don't make sense within our scientific understanding of the world.
Then, to the people talking about how science doesn't preach absolute truth: You don't understand what science is in the first place. Look up falsificationism and you'll get some idea; basically science is about making observations and through logical deductions try to make the best possible prediction about what mechanic is behind our observations. Can science ever prove something 100% correct this way? No, it can per definition NEVER be 100% correct. But neither can anything else.
-Physics student
Popper does not solve the problem of induction. Drawing conclusions from falsification is itself an inductive step, despite the introduction of a deductive component. Not only is it not 100% correct, it is 100% irrational if it is argued to provide us with a truth. If it is just pragmatically inspired that's a different matter entirely, but then it is unfit to partake in a debate as lofty as the one on free will.
I didn't mean to say there are no influencing factors. I kinda skimmed through it with my bipolar example, but humans don't exist in vacuum. We are influenced by a variety of things, genetics, automatic biological responses, medical condition, personal history, family history etc. Some of them can limit your range of choice, sometimes severely so. But despite all that we still have choice.
The artist has a very wide selection of media to use, a wide range of subjects to depict, and multiple choices to abandon the project or to cover over it. It becomes quite nonsensical to think that the forces of nature conspired to create the Mona Lisa or that the David statue was the result of random firings of neurons with causation going back since... time immemorial? Certainly there are outside influences- what if da Vinci's parents had been killed prior to his birth? Or even the artistic style of artists is often influenced by that of the past or their contemporaries. But at some point da Vinci had to sit down and create something and maybe even push the art into new territory.
And while there seems to be a compelling drive in humans to create- why that painting, why that woman, why those colours, why that texture, why that detailed, why that style, why that long (or short) to create. I don't see how you're going to find all the hidden causes and effects that eradicates the volition of da Vinci the painter. It starts sounding like Freud's unconscious mind. If everything is the effect of hidden processes and cause and effects (hidden by the facade of free will) then how does anyone break from of the deterministic processes in order to discover them? We* are still relying upon the deterministic processes to make our* discoveries. How do we get the view from the 'outside' as it were?
*Although more accurately there would be no collective we- just atoms and cells working together to from the so-called 'I" amongst the 'others'
I see no problem to get the view from the outside as you call it. Noone breaks the determinism, it just so happens that in this universe the laws are such that allow existence of such complex creatures that actually are able through "deterministic" behaviour discover that they are in fact deterministic. Determinism does not prevent complexity, probably quite the opposite actually.
I use "deterministic" to denote that I mean we as organism are deterministic machines, but that reality is not necessarily so.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change.
Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis
Also note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense.
Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit".
Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
Another good post. I especially liked the first line, people often do not consider the consequences of evolution regarding how we are capable of viewing or understanding the world.
There is a real problem with people rejecting an idea simply because it doesn't "feel" right, because it makes them uncomfortable. Truth is not dictated by human desire. In fact, if anything, I would say the desire for something to be true could be an argument AGAINST it's being true. But that's a completely different issue...
Truth is also not dictated by tradition. Just because you've believed something your whole life, doesn't mean it is true. It is very hard to hear a radical idea and accept it with an open-mind, because we are very wary of change or radical ideas. You have to consciously guard against bias or prejudice towards an idea if you want to reach the truth.
You either strive to think scientifically or you don't. If you don't think scientifically, and don't have any desire to, then don't bother coming up with flimsy justifications or rationalizations for your beliefs. Just be honest and say "this set of beliefs helps me live my life, and I will embrace them."
On March 06 2012 08:47 mcc wrote: That just leaves you open to a question : Why should we worship such a god that clearly does not share human moral values with us ? He is an evil entity from the point of view of our own values and saying that he is above that does not solve it as his moral values are of no concern to us. Our moral values are what matters to us. Of course you can always proclaim he is not able to prevent the disasters, but then it seems he is just a powerful, but not too much, entity.
My point is that preventing earthquakes and tsunamis is easily in his power and allowing them to happen he is violating human moral code on incredible scale, thus being evil. Whatever reasons he has for allowing them to happen (so we can help ourselves, so we can suffer, because he enjoys it) are not important, he is evil from a point of view of our morality and that is what is important for us humans.
There are ways you can argue out of it in some way, but free will argument is not an excuse. Free will is clearly compatible with the world without massive natural disasters.
On March 06 2012 08:47 mcc wrote: My point is that preventing earthquakes and tsunamis is easily in his power and allowing them to happen he is violating human moral code on incredible scale, thus being evil.
I would argue that death as a consequence of natural events is not evil. I agree that we as human beings find natural disasters to be tragic, but tragedy and evil are not one and the same. I could (stand up and then) fall and break my leg right now. I'd like to think that most people would agree that it's a tragic thing, but I'm also alone in a room right now with nobody around me. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call that evil.
Is a god who allows his creation to die (or experience other tragedy, such as my imaginary broken leg) evil by definition? Your statement highlighted above hinges on that idea. And I would disagree with you.
To use your example if I could realistically prevent you breaking your leg I am morally obligated to do so. If I do not I am doing something immoral. Tragedies are tragedies, but when you can prevent them you are obligated to. Or would you consider seeing someone dying in unbearable pain and not felt obligated to help him if you could ? God is presumed to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no such thing as being alone in the room for such a being. God that allows his creation to die is not evil, the one that allows them to suffer is.
EDIT: to clarify, allowing someone to die at 15 in a tsunami falls under suffering, dying of old age falls under the allowing to die.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
Do you honestly believe that a thunderstorm is being determined according to random quantum behavior? Seriously?
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change.
Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis
Also note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense.
Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit".
Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
Another good post. I especially liked the first line, people often do not consider the consequences of evolution regarding how we are capable of viewing or understanding the world.
There is a real problem with people rejecting an idea simply because it doesn't "feel" right, because it makes them uncomfortable. Truth is not dictated by human desire. In fact, if anything, I would say the desire for something to be true could be an argument AGAINST it's being true. But that's a completely different issue...
Truth is also not dictated by tradition. Just because you've believed something your whole life, doesn't mean it is true. It is very hard to hear a radical idea and accept it with an open-mind, because we are very wary of change or radical ideas. You have to consciously guard against bias or prejudice towards an idea if you want to reach the truth.
You either strive to think scientifically or you don't. If you don't think scientifically, and don't have any desire to, then don't bother coming up with flimsy justifications or rationalizations for your beliefs. Just be honest and say "this set of beliefs helps me live my life, and I will embrace them."
You speak of being open-minded and guarding against prejudice in some grand quest for truth, and then you equate truth to scientific conclusions in the very next paragraph. As a philosophy student I have found, quite ironically, that science students are among the most stubborn and least receptive when it comes to open-mindedness and openness to "radical ideas" that do not sit well with their scientific outlook. Did you ever open your mind enough to ask yourself what exactly you mean by truth, and how your scientific method could possibly get at it?
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
And just because you conclude that there are cause-and-effect relationships, that doesn't mean there are. All you ever see are phenomena accompanied by other phenomena repeatedly. At no point do you perceive a connection between the two.
Furthermore, random events are actually suggested by quantum physics and it's considered a major problem for determinists. It's a pretty big topic in any university module on free will. Not because it suggests free will, but because it suggests indeterminism.
I am not gonna read the thread right now because it's too long, but I would like to contribute a couple of my thoughts about free will (a topic I have thought about a ton).
1.) Realistically, free will is just a term that describes how we interpret things. Determinism doesn't stop free will from existing. What more could there possibly be than the experience of free will. We know of no transcendental phenomena that could explain free will, it's actually unfathomable. Something being predetermined has no bearing on whether or not you choose it, it's a fallacy to think it does.
2.) If for some reason free will must be some sort of transcendental thing for you then it could be explained by each of us (or at least me) having a personal universe that is created around the choices we make (which I believe physicists have talked about this a lot actually). The problem then is "what constitutes a choice" and "who is making the choices"[buddhism 101]. When you ask those questions the concept of free will falls apart again and I would suggest going back to #1
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy Im studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote: I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
You are relying on the law of causality when using such terms and definitions. Nothing is only black and white by itsself unless you make it that. The law you rely on is just a way to interpret the world, but its not proven to be true, nor can it ever be. David Hume wrote on a lot of interesting stuff on causality and such a law can never be proven by induction.
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Where on earth did you get the impression that you know what's going on in contemporary philosophy? First of all, the majority of graduates of decent programs work in contemporary philosophy, not %1 (why would you think that?). Secondly, those that don't do contemporary work are not typically people defending the ideas of historical work, but rather studying their meaning as one might study literature without advocating the ideas therein. No snake oil involved.
On March 06 2012 04:47 koreasilver wrote: Minor flaws like how the entire movement collapsed upon itself, right?
Not really true, more like moved on. It's not like everyone rescinded all of their initial beliefs and became rationalists. The group fell apart, the movement fell out of favor. Much of what was good in their philosophy was adopted by others who were not part of the movement. Ethical nonrealism, emotivism, the scope of philosophy, many of these positions are widely accepted and just because the group fell apart doesn't mean everything they stood for did as well.
Like most things in this world, its just not that simple.
How do you exist? These are just sociological falsehoods. Emotivism hasn't been adopted by contemporary philosophy; the majority of contemporary philosophers consider it refuted by simple linguistic arguments. The broader ethical nonrealism is still a minority position. Extraordinarily few contemporary philosophers would agree with positivists on the scope of philosophy (I can't name a single one). You are simply wrong about all of this.
For that matter, positivism's "minor problems" include the incoherence of its central tenet (that the verification theory of meaning is meaningless by its own standards). This is part of the reason why philosophy has moved so far away from the things you think it has adopted.
On March 06 2012 09:42 mcc wrote: To use your example if I could realistically prevent you breaking your leg I am morally obligated to do so. If I do not I am doing something immoral. Tragedies are tragedies, but when you can prevent them you are obligated to. Or would you consider seeing someone dying in unbearable pain and not felt obligated to help him if you could ? God is presumed to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no such thing as being alone in the room for such a being. God that allows his creation to die is not evil, the one that allows them to suffer is.
So you would be in favor of a god who coddled his creation, attended to their every need and prevented every injury before it even happened? A god like you describe would be obliged to expend effort constantly to maintain an idyllic universe.
I believe that you are correct in saying that human beings are morally obliged to help one another and ease suffering to the best of our ability. I think that the reason we have that obligation is because God is interested in allowing us to be moral agents. A universe in which God takes care of all evil or tragedy on our behalf denies us any opportunity to exercise moral choice. I might go so far as to say it denies us the ability to make any meaningful choices.
I think that God is deeply grieved by tragedy and death. But he is willing to permit tragedy and death such as natural disasters because doing so enables his creation to have a more meaningful existence. On the one hand, yes we do suffer, but what we as a species gain is, in my opinion, worth the pain.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
Do you honestly believe that a thunderstorm is being determined according to random quantum behavior? Seriously?
Why are you so binary in your way of thinking? Quantum events contribute to events on the molecular level, and those in turn contribute to macroscopic events. This doesn't mean that ONE PARTICULAR QUANTUM EVENT caused a lightning storm, because there are so insanely many instances involved. Seperate stochastic events are magnified and sometimes cause significant differences on molecular levels. You can't argue that what is too small to see under a microscope can't influence events we can actually observe.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
Do you honestly believe that a thunderstorm is being determined according to random quantum behavior? Seriously?
Why are you so binary in your way of thinking? Quantum events contribute to events on the molecular level, and those in turn contribute to macroscopic events. This doesn't mean that ONE PARTICULAR QUANTUM EVENT caused a lightning storm, because there are so insanely many instances involved. Seperate stochastic events are magnified and sometimes cause significant differences on molecular levels. You can't argue that what is too small to see under a microscope can't influence events we can actually observe.
What you are telling me is that determinism doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. Let's just say my opinions differ...
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change.
Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis
Also note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense.
Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit".
Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
Another good post. I especially liked the first line, people often do not consider the consequences of evolution regarding how we are capable of viewing or understanding the world.
There is a real problem with people rejecting an idea simply because it doesn't "feel" right, because it makes them uncomfortable. Truth is not dictated by human desire. In fact, if anything, I would say the desire for something to be true could be an argument AGAINST it's being true. But that's a completely different issue...
Truth is also not dictated by tradition. Just because you've believed something your whole life, doesn't mean it is true. It is very hard to hear a radical idea and accept it with an open-mind, because we are very wary of change or radical ideas. You have to consciously guard against bias or prejudice towards an idea if you want to reach the truth.
You either strive to think scientifically or you don't. If you don't think scientifically, and don't have any desire to, then don't bother coming up with flimsy justifications or rationalizations for your beliefs. Just be honest and say "this set of beliefs helps me live my life, and I will embrace them."
You speak of being open-minded and guarding against prejudice in some grand quest for truth, and then you equate truth to scientific conclusions in the very next paragraph. As a philosophy student I have found, quite ironically, that science students are among the most stubborn and least receptive when it comes to open-mindedness and openness to "radical ideas" that do not sit well with their scientific outlook. Did you ever open your mind enough to ask yourself what exactly you mean by truth, and how your scientific method could possibly get at it?
Scientists make progress in explaining the world according to the scientific method and using empirical evidence.
Philosophy students run themselves in illogical psychological circles using concepts which had no basis from the very beginning, and arrive at no conclusions while the world is being explained around them by scientists.
Sorry, I don't believe in granting an existence to things we invent in the human mind, and then debating about what our own mind meant when we created them, so I have some bias against so-called "philosophy." When I speak of "truth," you must understand I am using a very plebeian, unsophisticated, perhaps "common sense" version of the term.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
This is an interesting, but I think ultimately flawed argument that calls for a distinction I believe.
I haven't heard it made in any of the philosophy I've read, nor in the 1 lecture class I took, but would love some authors to seek if anybody has heard anything resembling the idea, which is basically discerning the difference between hard determinism and a perception of free will.
Which is to say - we perceive free will because we make decisions in the first person perspective. What decisions we make, how we react to anything may very well be pre-determined, but we experience the process of making that choice first hand. We may or may not actually have a freedom of will, and we may never know, as our will is also defined in the massive cause and effect chain that is existence as we know it.
(I am on this website replying to this post because I got interested in eSports and Starcraft, I got interested in eSports and Starcraft because... ... ...My parents got together and had a child because... ... ...The Earth cooled and... ... ...The big bang.)
The only definition of God that I have found hard to disagree with was the use of it as the title of the first cause in that chain. My philosophy teacher said that whether or not it was sentient, or whether we believe in a deity etc. that by calling the first cause 'God' that God exists. Which, I think is fine if you recognize it as applying a term to something you don't have a better term for, I still don't agree with most modernly defined deities etc.
So - why did you move your leg? Your perceived free will dictates that you did so because you wanted to. But why did you want to? Was it your pre-conditioning, which is based on your history, upbringing, or genetic structure? Whether we actually have free will or not is somewhat meaningless. I personally think we lack free will, but for all intents and purposes we might as well have it, because our will is our will regardless of an overarching definition of freedom.
Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes. Try to read it and give it a shot. There are some things that have to be declared first, and that is that there is nothing truly random in the universe, including electron probabilities, antiparticle existence, etc quantum etc.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote: Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
free will seems to be the product of animallike instincts (causal stimuli) and relationing cognitve processes. its the deterministic linkage of animallike standardisation and human cognitive flexibility
On March 06 2012 10:01 NIJ wrote: I consider this dilemma the same way I consider solipsism and brain in a vat dilemma.
Do I have free will. Yes Do I truly have free will. Doesn't matter.
How can it not matter? The opinions you hold will influence your behavior.
On March 06 2012 10:03 BillClinton wrote: free will seems to be the product of animallike instincts (causal stimuli) and relationing cognitve processes. its the deterministic linkage of animallike standardisation and human cognitive flexibility
Your so-called "human cognitive flexibility" cannot violate the laws of nature which dictate the behavior of chemicals within the brain.
On March 06 2012 10:03 travis wrote: So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
Quantum events affect the chemical composition of things, i.e., our brains, which results in slightly different equilibrium of reactions and such, which could affect decision making.
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote: Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
I know it may be impossible for us as actors in the universe to calculate both the energy and position of things. But I'm proposing that there is an actor, perhaps adjacent to our universe that could. I know that sounds weird but if it's possible to calculate these, would the rest of my theory be possible as well?
I haven't heard it made in any of the philosophy I've read, nor in the 1 lecture class I took, but would love some authors to seek if anybody has heard anything resembling the idea, which is basically discerning the difference between hard determinism and a perception of free will.
Which is to say - we perceive free will because we make decisions in the first person perspective. What decisions we make, how we react to anything may very well be pre-determined, but we experience the process of making that choice first hand. We may or may not actually have a freedom of will, and we may never know, as our will is also defined in the massive cause and effect chain that is existence as we know it.
...
So - why did you move your leg? Your perceived free will dictates that you did so because you wanted to. But why did you want to? Was it your pre-conditioning, which is based on your history, upbringing, or genetic structure? Whether we actually have free will or not is somewhat meaningless. I personally think we lack free will, but for all intents and purposes we might as well have it, because our will is our will regardless of an overarching definition of freedom.
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote: Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
I know it may be impossible for us as actors in the universe to calculate both the energy and position of things. But I'm proposing that there is an actor, perhaps adjacent to our universe that could. I know that sounds weird but if it's possible to calculate these, would the rest of my theory be possible as well?
This isn't about the technology we have access to. It is actually theoretically impossible to do it, without breaking some physical law. So if you're proposing some entity with the ability to break physical laws, then perhaps it could be true, but if we can assume that's true then all of science, logic, and reason becomes invalid.
The rest of your theory sounds a little hair-brained to me, but if you had the computational power to do it... I suppose it's possible.
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.
Yes pretty much - you can confine it to within a space, but the behavior within that space is still perfectly random. There is still actually a vanishingly small chance for the electron to escape your confinement - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling However, if your confinement is large enough, you might have to wait longer than the age of the universe to have a chance of seeing it happen...
On March 06 2012 10:03 travis wrote: So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
Quantum events affect the chemical composition of things, i.e., our brains, which results in slightly different equilibrium of reactions and such, which could affect decision making.
Ok but that doesn't back the idea of transcendental free will, which is why most people seem to be bringing quantum mechanics into the thread.
On March 06 2012 08:45 Housemd wrote: I never believed in free will.
Let us take a coin for example. If we flip the coin, it is a 50/50 guess on which side it would land. However, a person can accurately figure this out through careful calculations about the speed of the flip, position from which it was flipped, crosswind, etc.
That can also apply to humans. The coin's fate is predetermined and so is the fate of humans.
i reality, there are no nations, there are no borders, in reality there is no money and deep down you know its true or some of you may understand this on the surface but can not grasp the deeper meaning of it. Meditate about this and maybe you will get a small fraction of understanding what it really means.
in reality there are nations and borders and there is certainly money. just because these things only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they are not real.
Are there even laws ? Laws are a construct of the humans as they construct laws everywhere. They are an illusion. Maybe there are no laws but the laws that the humans have created.
again, just because they only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they don't exist. they absolutely exist, just as the words you are using exist. they would have no meaning if we didn't give them meaning, but since we do give them meaning they do have meaning. to say that the meaning we give them is an illusion is to say that you shouldn't be able to understand these words, but you do. you can't help but understand them now that you have learned them. the universe itself gives no meaning, only thinking beings can give meaning. a painting exists, even before it is painted, as long as it is conceived by the painter. it exists as an idea. to say that ideas don't exist in some form is simply wrong.
I do not know how to explain it to you, maybe you can get a glimmer or small grasp of it due to the limitiations that nearly all of the humans have.
i have noticed in my experience that things that are impossible to explain because of the listener's "limitations" are often just hard to explain because they have no real explanation.
in reality there are nations and borders and there is certainly money. just because these things only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they are not real.
You claim that in reality, there are nations, but why ? Because the humans imagine them to be there. The humans imagine a lot of things that are not really there or that they invented, imagined. They are so cought up in their virtual world that they do not see what they or some of them at some level are capable of doing.
again, just because they only have the meaning we give them does not mean that they don't exist.
and here lies the catch, they ONLY have the meaning, that humans give them. And then again lets stay on this plane and argue that the words have a meaning, I say they have the meaning we imagine them to have. You Imagine that my words mean something, why ? Maybe they dont, maybe they only mean something to me as it is with your words. You understand the words that you can or want to understand and imagine a meaning of them.
i have noticed in my experience that things that are impossible to explain because of the listener's "limitations" are often just hard to explain because they have no real explanation.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
Weather was, is and will be deterministic, as everything in the universe. Knowing every single thing about every single particle in the universe means you can predetrmine all.
Of course we don't have the means yet to know the cause and effect of everything, but it is possible, and FREE WILL is one of the major things that drive us to this goal.
One of the things that are slowing us down in this adventurous campaign is religion. It makes us stop thinking and dive into "comfortable" unawarness of our real surroundings.
Free will, imagination and curiosity are the most creative and awesome force in the universe. Religion, and ingorancy are the most destructive.
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote: Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
I know it may be impossible for us as actors in the universe to calculate both the energy and position of things. But I'm proposing that there is an actor, perhaps adjacent to our universe that could. I know that sounds weird but if it's possible to calculate these, would the rest of my theory be possible as well?
This isn't about the technology we have access to. It is actually theoretically impossible to do it, without breaking some physical law. So if you're proposing some entity with the ability to break physical laws, then perhaps it could be true, but if we can assume that's true then all of science, logic, and reason becomes invalid.
The rest of your theory sounds a little hair-brained to me, but if you had the computational power to do it... I suppose it's possible.
Wow hair-brained, my feelings are hurt. I will take my marijuana-induced ideas elsewhere!
On March 06 2012 10:01 NIJ wrote: I consider this dilemma the same way I consider solipsism and brain in a vat dilemma.
Do I have free will. Yes Do I truly have free will. Doesn't matter.
How can it not matter? The opinions you hold will influence your behavior.
Well I tried to keep it short. But just like the way I consider brain in a vat dilemma, for all practical purposes I am not a brain in a vat. You can always extend the hypothetical to a point I can't be sure if I am not. To which my reply is doesn't matter.
Same here. I have a free will. But it seems you can always extend the hypothetical scenario to a point where I may not. At that point it really doesn't matter and doesn't affect me at all.
On March 06 2012 09:28 Tachyon wrote: To the people arguing that if we don't have free will, then everything is fated: Think about how many macroscopic events that are random...
They. Aren't. Random. And you claim to be a physics student? A physics student who believes in "random" macroscopic events???
I stopped reading here. I'm gonna bold and underline this so maybe more people will see it...
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE CAUSES OF SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT CAUSED.
This fallacy in thinking has been repeated over and over and over in this thread. It's really getting tiring.
So you think the weather is completely deterministic? Explain to me how quantum mechanics does not influence the macroscopic world at all.
Do you honestly believe that a thunderstorm is being determined according to random quantum behavior? Seriously?
Why are you so binary in your way of thinking? Quantum events contribute to events on the molecular level, and those in turn contribute to macroscopic events. This doesn't mean that ONE PARTICULAR QUANTUM EVENT caused a lightning storm, because there are so insanely many instances involved. Seperate stochastic events are magnified and sometimes cause significant differences on molecular levels. You can't argue that what is too small to see under a microscope can't influence events we can actually observe.
What you are telling me is that determinism doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. Let's just say my opinions differ...
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
See thats the very problem. You say people believed that Zeus caused lightning, whereas today we think its electric charging or something. But there simply is no fundamental difference between both explanations, mb our explanation is more compatible and coherent with the rest of our world view and lets us make better predictions, but its far from beeing the absolute and only truth. I dont think science will ever be able to prove that free will doesnt exist, because scientist who try to are unreflected, reductive, don't consider philosophical and everyday knowledge and try to prove something thats impossible. We could discuss forever if numbers exist for example, there simply is nothing that could happen that would prove anything or even make a view on the (non-)existence of numbers change.
Does big bang theory seem like a good explanation to you? Everything came out of a point with infinite(!) temperature and volumic mass?! You cant ask what happened before because its a singularity and time and space didnt exist before? To me thats the worst explanation and the most bullshit I have ever heard (even creation is better). Its just the limits of a world view that come to show here. Its the same with light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find. In early quantum physics people suggested to let go of the Law of excluded middle, because it didnt seem compatible with new experiences and it was really considered to do so. To me thats just the limits of a world view and we have many possibilities to include certain experiences in a coherent system. There is no truth to stand-alone sentences, only to complete views of the world and i dont think any world view could adequately grasp the world. There will always be limits to every world view or model or concept or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis
Also note that i edited the post above; of course free will is not a 100% metaphysically free will, but a certain part, of what we call free will, could be free in a metaphysical sense.
Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit".
Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
Another good post. I especially liked the first line, people often do not consider the consequences of evolution regarding how we are capable of viewing or understanding the world.
There is a real problem with people rejecting an idea simply because it doesn't "feel" right, because it makes them uncomfortable. Truth is not dictated by human desire. In fact, if anything, I would say the desire for something to be true could be an argument AGAINST it's being true. But that's a completely different issue...
Truth is also not dictated by tradition. Just because you've believed something your whole life, doesn't mean it is true. It is very hard to hear a radical idea and accept it with an open-mind, because we are very wary of change or radical ideas. You have to consciously guard against bias or prejudice towards an idea if you want to reach the truth.
You either strive to think scientifically or you don't. If you don't think scientifically, and don't have any desire to, then don't bother coming up with flimsy justifications or rationalizations for your beliefs. Just be honest and say "this set of beliefs helps me live my life, and I will embrace them."
You speak of being open-minded and guarding against prejudice in some grand quest for truth, and then you equate truth to scientific conclusions in the very next paragraph. As a philosophy student I have found, quite ironically, that science students are among the most stubborn and least receptive when it comes to open-mindedness and openness to "radical ideas" that do not sit well with their scientific outlook. Did you ever open your mind enough to ask yourself what exactly you mean by truth, and how your scientific method could possibly get at it?
Scientists make progress in explaining the world according to the scientific method and using empirical evidence.
Philosophy students run themselves in illogical psychological circles using concepts which had no basis from the very beginning, and arrive at no conclusions while the world is being explained around them by scientists.
Sorry, I don't believe in granting an existence to things we invent in the human mind, and then debating about what our own mind meant when we created them, so I have some bias against so-called "philosophy." When I speak of "truth," you must understand I am using a very plebeian, unsophisticated, perhaps "common sense" version of the term.
You can combat neither the religious nor the (philosophically) sceptical that way. It's only useful to ridicule the unreflected. You're bullying the scientifically benighted for their lack of interest in your particular kind of truth. There's nothing common about it, unless contemporary popularity within academia is what you mean.
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote: Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
And this is what people thought one hundred years ago. Then we found out that you can only determine the position and velocity of a particle to a certain extent, The Uncertainty Principle. Without quantum mechanics and its non-deterministic nature, atoms could not exist, the electrons would race towards the nucleus if the world was governed by classical eletromagnetism. The Schrödinger Equation predicts the probability amplitude, you can only assign a certain probability to each quantum state...
@liberal: If you "don't agree" with quantum mechanics, then you're not arguing from a standpoint of science. You're free to not do so, but then don't imply that you are.
I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
On March 06 2012 10:03 travis wrote: So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
Quantum events affect the chemical composition of things, i.e., our brains, which results in slightly different equilibrium of reactions and such, which could affect decision making.
Ok but that doesn't back the idea of transcendental free will, which is why most people seem to be bringing quantum mechanics into the thread.
I don't know what to tell you, there. I used Quantum Mechanics (as well as many other things) to argue for free will from a chemical perspective, here.
On March 06 2012 10:00 Nagano wrote: Ok, I've always wanted to share a particular theory I have regarding free will vs determinism, but have had never the chance to. So here it goes.
Imagine 2 dimensional black box bounded by the x- and y- axes. In this black box is a white ball that moves at a particular vector (velocity and direction). This ball and box obeys the typical laws of physics (think Pong). When it hits the boundaries of the black box, it bounces off at the correct angle. Add a time dimension to this box, and set an origin for the ball's position and vector, and now you are able to calculate where the ball will be, and it's vector, at any given point in time (t) in the future. For example, because I know that this ball moves at a certain velocity in a given direction at time t, I will be able to calculate it's position and vector in the future.
Now, add a second ball to this box, allowing the balls to also collide with each other and bounce off correctly according to the physics given. You will be able to determine the position and vector of both balls at any given time in the future. Of course, you'd need a nice computer to be able to do so, but you will be able to calculate it nevertheless.
If you continue to add more and more balls to this box, and perhaps increase its dimensions, you will ALWAYS be able to calculate the position of every single ball (b1, b2, b3, ...) up to any number of balls imaginable, at any given point in time, given a theoretical supercomputer that would be able to compute such a massive calculation.
The universe as we know it was created by a big bang, and operates on a set of physical and quantum rules that we assume to be determinible, if not now then sometime in the future. If at the point in the big bang where a theoretical supercomputer could calculate the position and vector of each particle--atomic, subatomic, etc etc--along with the complete set of rules of the universe, then it would be able to determine where every single particle in existence would be at any given point in time.
The big idea here is that this supercomputer would be able to calculate that the particle structure known as nagano(me) would be here moving through space at this point in time, with the part of my structure called my fingers clacking away at this keyboard. Everything that comprises the human body is a particle operates on the set of rules in this universe, even if we do not know these rules in its entirety (seemingly random probabilities of electrons and antiparticles popping in and out of existence). My decision, though I feel them to be independent of any set of physical rules, still operate within the universe and its rules. Anyone with a background in science can postulate that perhaps our consciousness and our decisions are merely physical operations our body is able to make.
Even though such a supercomputer doesn't (and probably cannot) exist, the principle still remains that every particle's position and vector could be calculated.
So my theory is that because of this principle, the future is already determined because it is a function of the positions and vectors of all the particles in the universe at its origin t=~0.
TL;DR: Given the set of rules governing the universe, the position and vector of all particles can be calculated at any time in the future, thus the future can be extrapolated and it is determined.
What do you guys think? I thought of this a while back and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if I was high at the time. But I think it's a cool idea and could definitely use some criticism.
And this is what people thought one hundred years ago. Then we found out that you can only determine the position and velocity of a particle to a certain extent, The Uncertainty Principle. Without quantum mechanics and its non-deterministic nature, atoms could not exist, the electrons would race towards the nucleus if the world was governed by classical eletromagnetism. The Schrödinger Equation predicts the probability amplitude, you can only assign a certain probability to each quantum state...
@liberal: If you "don't agree" with quantum mechanics, then you're not arguing from a standpoint of science. You're free to not do so, but then don't imply that you are.
Damnit, well there goes that supposed brilliant idea. By a single principle too. I knew it was too cool too be true.
On March 06 2012 09:50 travis wrote: I am not gonna read the thread right now because it's too long, but I would like to contribute a couple of my thoughts about free will (a topic I have thought about a ton).
1.) Realistically, free will is just a term that describes how we interpret things. Determinism doesn't stop free will from existing. What more could there possibly be than the experience of free will. We know of no transcendental phenomena that could explain free will, it's actually unfathomable. Something being predetermined has no bearing on whether or not you choose it, it's a fallacy to think it does.
2.) If for some reason free will must be some sort of transcendental thing for you then it could be explained by each of us (or at least me) having a personal universe that is created around the choices we make (which I believe physicists have talked about this a lot actually). The problem then is "what constitutes a choice" and "who is making the choices"[buddhism 101]. When you ask those questions the concept of free will falls apart again and I would suggest going back to #1
Regardless if determinism could stop free will or not, what makes the existence of free will the default position? A big reason I doubt free will exists personally is probably simply because I haven't heard of anything that indicates that it does.
On a slightly related note which has possibly been discussed before in this thread, I can't help but wonder why people place so much importance on having free will. To me, whether or not we have free will is utterly important in the grand scheme of things. So what if we do or do not have true choice?
If you are a believer in a free will and suddenly tomorrow have it proven to you that free will does not exist, would you act any different? And conversely, if you had always thought all your actions were caused by physics reactions in the neurones of the brain and suddenly tomorrow you found out that scientists have discovered proof of humans having a free will, would you act any different?
On a personal note, I do not believe in free will, but whether or not I'm right has never bothered me. It has not and will never impact my day to day behaviour or actions. So although I understand why debating this is interesting from a hypothetical point of view, why do people get so worked up about it?
I suppose I have one possible answer to my own question. Some (most) religions like Christianity believe in a free will while other religions like Buddhism and I suppose atheism believe in no free will. I suppose this discussion is thereby some sort of front for a religious discussion, which are obviously huge 'discussion' material.
It's 1:30am so I may not be completely coherent, but I'm just interested in seeing your thoughts. Goodnight!
I have always agreed with the notion that 'free will' is a very good way to shore up the shortcomings of major religious groups. Free will in itself does a great job of showing that God, should he exist, is not perfect.
Consciousness and all of it's implications is a very difficult thing to understand.
The lack of free will does not imply a predetermined destiny, but I think that the concept of choosing, and our ability to do so, is a bit misconstrued. We seem to use our [perceived] advanced cognitive ability as a way to distance ourselves from 'mere animals', and free will is a big stone in that building.
Our desire to be more than just animals is what I believe gives us this sense of 'free-will'- it's the ability to decide your own fate. People, in general, don't like to think of the future as a big unknown, so we do things to trim those perceptions.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean there is no answer.
Sorry if this is stupid and fragmented, just sort of a stream of thought on the subject in the OP.
On March 06 2012 10:03 travis wrote: So to address lots of the posts in here, what is the supposed connection between quantum level events and the choices we make. Is it just assumed there is one without having any inkling of why where or how?
Quantum events affect the chemical composition of things, i.e., our brains, which results in slightly different equilibrium of reactions and such, which could affect decision making.
Ok but that doesn't back the idea of transcendental free will, which is why most people seem to be bringing quantum mechanics into the thread.
I don't know what to tell you, there. I used Quantum Mechanics (as well as many other things) to argue for free will from a chemical perspective, here.
My thinking is that human decisions are made based on the chemical compositions of our brains at the moment of a decision. There's a certain randomness to chemistry, what my old chem teacher used to call "the X-Factor" -- that is, that strange nature of chemistry that results in the same experiment, repeated over and over and over again, yielding slightly different results each time. Anyone with a rudimentary chemistry education will understand that it's not quite an exact science, and relies on factors such as entropy, which is actually defined as randomness.
This is not actually the way it works. We've actually moved on from this understanding of quantum physics. We've actually shown that experiments where different results have been examined each time have completely determinable results. We have a much better understanding of what happens at the quantum level. There is no randomness in quantum physics. This was used when we knew less. It is an outdated idea.
For the record atheism is not a religion, and secondly, im surprised at the amount of people that DONT believe we have free will. I think most atheists would believe that we do have free will as opposed to what Firebolt said. I think quantum mechanics offers a whole new framework on which to build concepts off of. The free will argument was mostly framed with the conception that everything was governed by the laws of physics, and therefore could be calculated. Quantum mechanics has shown us this isnt the case. In most situations, on the quantum level, particles behave exactly opposite to how you would logically predict they would. At the base level, the universe is quite unpredictable and random.
On March 06 2012 10:30 Focuspants wrote: For the record atheism is not a religion, and secondly, im surprised at the amount of people that DONT believe we have free will. I think most atheists would believe that we do have free will as opposed to what Firebolt said. I think quantum mechanics offers a whole new framework on which to build concepts off of. The free will argument was mostly framed with the conception that everything was governed by the laws of physics, and therefore could be calculated. Quantum mechanics has shown us this isnt the case. In most situations, on the quantum level, particles behave exactly opposite to how you would logically predict they would. At the base level, the universe is quite unpredictable and random.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
On March 06 2012 10:30 Focuspants wrote: For the record atheism is not a religion, and secondly, im surprised at the amount of people that DONT believe we have free will. I think most atheists would believe that we do have free will as opposed to what Firebolt said. I think quantum mechanics offers a whole new framework on which to build concepts off of. The free will argument was mostly framed with the conception that everything was governed by the laws of physics, and therefore could be calculated. Quantum mechanics has shown us this isnt the case. In most situations, on the quantum level, particles behave exactly opposite to how you would logically predict they would. At the base level, the universe is quite unpredictable and random.
If we had free will then wouldn't that mean that we have control over the probabilties/"unpredictableness"?
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
Most libertarian philosophers who use QM as the basis for indeterminism in the brain think it does provide free will. It should be noted that quantum mechanical events in the brain are reinterpreted to be part of the agent, meaning that we shouldn't think of these as weird arbitrary events that make us do erratic behavior, but the same as other mental processes like deliberation and reading and whatever. They generally assert that these undetermined events are guided by our reasons, meaning that there's like a 50% chance that you'll decide to eat ice cream and a 50% chance you'll eat a hamburger instead. The out here is that you redefine these apparently arbitrary events to be in accordance with the agent's reasons and beliefs, then use the fact that they're undetermined to place it in a more tenable position that deterministic mental processes, which look bad.
Whether this relabeling is factually accurate is you know something to be argued about (I personally think it's wrong), but it's pretty bold to just say incompatibilism isn't a legitimate view, and I don't think it does much good to ignore a lot of thinking that people have been doing about it. Also, with regard to 5), earlier you said causation is equivalent to deterministic causation, which isn't generally held to be true. If I put some kind of radioactive chemical in someone's pocket, there's only a probabilistic chance it will end up killing them, but most people still agree that I would have caused that person's death. So this is the avenue libertarians take to say the agent can nondeterministically cause his own actions.
On March 06 2012 10:30 Focuspants wrote: For the record atheism is not a religion, and secondly, im surprised at the amount of people that DONT believe we have free will. I think most atheists would believe that we do have free will as opposed to what Firebolt said. I think quantum mechanics offers a whole new framework on which to build concepts off of. The free will argument was mostly framed with the conception that everything was governed by the laws of physics, and therefore could be calculated. Quantum mechanics has shown us this isnt the case. In most situations, on the quantum level, particles behave exactly opposite to how you would logically predict they would. At the base level, the universe is quite unpredictable and random.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
#2 and #5. Please tell me your thoughts.
Free will CAN be arbitrary. If you say, hey focuspants, raise or lower your arm. I will arbitrarily pick one. Many actions require more than arbitrary responses, but not everything does. Inconsequential decisions are chosen arbitrarily. If someone says pick door 1 or 2, and both opotions are identical, youre acting arbitrarily. If you want to extend this to decisions that are more difficult to make, its a whole other argument, but arbitrary behaviour in qm can be used comparatively with arbitrary (free willed) decisions we make.
as for point 5, that line of reasoning confuses me. I actually wrote a thesis on statements that are immune from doubt for an epistemology class. Your caused and un-caused statement I dont believe is true. Something either is or isnt. Take a few examples;
1) It is either raining, or it is not raining. There is no superposition that exists in bewteen the two. The case must be the affirmative or the negation, it cant be both, and it cant be neither.
2) It is either Sunday or it is not Sunday. Again, same idea
If you apply this to free will, it is true that it is either caused or uncaused, but it cant be something in the middle. I dont know what position you believe exists for #5 to be true. You would have to explain yourself a bit more for me to debate you on it.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
Most libertarian philosophers who use QM as the basis for indeterminism in the brain think it does provide free will. It should be noted that quantum mechanical events in the brain are reinterpreted to be part of the agent, meaning that we shouldn't think of these as weird arbitrary events that make us do erratic behavior, but the same as other mental processes like deliberation and reading and whatever. They generally assert that these undetermined events are guided by our reasons, meaning that there's like a 50% chance that you'll decide to eat ice cream and a 50% chance you'll eat a hamburger instead. The out here is that you redefine these apparently arbitrary events to be in accordance with the agent's reasons and beliefs, then use the fact that they're undetermined to place it in a more tenable position that deterministic mental processes, which look bad.
This doesn't suffice as an argument for free will, because people define free will as the conscious being consciously choosing behavior. To suggest that the "agent," in other words the body, is determined to a point and then has some uncontrolled randomness thrown in is not what the vast majority of people would define as free will. In other words, it is trying to redefine the term to avoid the problem at hand.
Also, with regard to 5), earlier you said causation is equivalent to deterministic causation, which isn't generally held to be true. If I put some kind of radioactive chemical in someone's pocket, there's only a probabilistic chance it will end up killing them, but most people still agree that I would have caused that person's death. So this is the avenue libertarians take to say the agent can nondeterministically cause his own actions.
In #5 I referred to both caused and uncaused events being possible, not just determinism. I'm not sure what you even mean by referring to the "probabilistic chance" of a person's death. Either the person's death is determined and we are simply ignorant of the cause, in which case I would refer you to point #1, or the radioactivity itself is arbitrary, in which case I would refer to my previous statement.
On March 06 2012 10:30 Focuspants wrote: For the record atheism is not a religion, and secondly, im surprised at the amount of people that DONT believe we have free will. I think most atheists would believe that we do have free will as opposed to what Firebolt said. I think quantum mechanics offers a whole new framework on which to build concepts off of. The free will argument was mostly framed with the conception that everything was governed by the laws of physics, and therefore could be calculated. Quantum mechanics has shown us this isnt the case. In most situations, on the quantum level, particles behave exactly opposite to how you would logically predict they would. At the base level, the universe is quite unpredictable and random.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
#2 and #5. Please tell me your thoughts.
Free will CAN be arbitrary. If you say, hey focuspants, raise or lower your arm. I will arbitrarily pick one. Many actions require more than arbitrary responses, but not everything does. Inconsequential decisions are chosen arbitrarily. If someone says pick door 1 or 2, and both opotions are identical, youre acting arbitrarily. If you want to extend this to decisions that are more difficult to make, its a whole other argument, but arbitrary behaviour in qm can be used comparatively with arbitrary (free willed) decisions we make.
as for point 5, that line of reasoning confuses me. I actually wrote a thesis on statements that are immune from doubt for an epistemology class. Your caused and un-caused statement I dont believe is true. Something either is or isnt. Take a few examples;
1) It is either raining, or it is not raining. There is no superposition that exists in bewteen the two. The case must be the affirmative or the negation, it cant be both, and it cant be neither.
2) It is either Sunday or it is not Sunday. Again, same idea
If you apply this to free will, it is true that it is either caused or uncaused, but it cant be something in the middle. I dont know what position you believe exists for #5 to be true. You would have to explain yourself a bit more for me to debate you on it.
If the behavior is ARBITRARY, then by definition it is not WILLED, and so cannot be considered FREE WILL.
As far as you not understanding my fifth point, I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer. I stated rather simply that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused.
Imagine if I said that is was neither raining, nor not raining, nor a combination of the two. Can't you see how this exhausts all possibility???
On March 06 2012 10:30 Focuspants wrote: For the record atheism is not a religion, and secondly, im surprised at the amount of people that DONT believe we have free will. I think most atheists would believe that we do have free will as opposed to what Firebolt said. I think quantum mechanics offers a whole new framework on which to build concepts off of. The free will argument was mostly framed with the conception that everything was governed by the laws of physics, and therefore could be calculated. Quantum mechanics has shown us this isnt the case. In most situations, on the quantum level, particles behave exactly opposite to how you would logically predict they would. At the base level, the universe is quite unpredictable and random.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
#2 and #5. Please tell me your thoughts.
Free will CAN be arbitrary. If you say, hey focuspants, raise or lower your arm. I will arbitrarily pick one. Many actions require more than arbitrary responses, but not everything does. Inconsequential decisions are chosen arbitrarily. If someone says pick door 1 or 2, and both opotions are identical, youre acting arbitrarily. If you want to extend this to decisions that are more difficult to make, its a whole other argument, but arbitrary behaviour in qm can be used comparatively with arbitrary (free willed) decisions we make.
as for point 5, that line of reasoning confuses me. I actually wrote a thesis on statements that are immune from doubt for an epistemology class. Your caused and un-caused statement I dont believe is true. Something either is or isnt. Take a few examples;
1) It is either raining, or it is not raining. There is no superposition that exists in bewteen the two. The case must be the affirmative or the negation, it cant be both, and it cant be neither.
2) It is either Sunday or it is not Sunday. Again, same idea
If you apply this to free will, it is true that it is either caused or uncaused, but it cant be something in the middle. I dont know what position you believe exists for #5 to be true. You would have to explain yourself a bit more for me to debate you on it.
This is not how superposition works. It is not arbitrary. It is not random. These are the ways we used to think it worked. We were wrong.
Burden of proof in this case is a neat trick to escape having to prove your position. I don't particularly see why one ought to be default position over the other. You may find free will the extraordinary position, but I find no free will just as extraordinary. Personal incredulity is not the basis for determining a default position on determinism/free will.
The appeal to unknown cause and effects to explain every human behaviour and thought so as explain away the moment by moment experience of free will is just as an appeal to the mysterious unknown if not more so. Mysterious free will vs mysterious deterministic human machine.
I feel like people are either smuggling in free will ideas to match how a human lives their daily life. Either that or we haven't defined our terms well enough.
Because when I hears talk about human 'volition' I'm not really sure what the difference is.
If I'm understanding right. Humans are amazingly complex machine, but it's all input, input, input. Crunch some numbers in the mysterious part of the brain and spit out an action. There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware). So because the machine can learn, it can crunch out different numbers and a different action. But that action, whatever it is, is the only action that would've been made given the same conditions (emotion, temperature, whatever.) Once all the inputs are in, one action is the inevitable result
So what we have is something that can learn, and give different outputs, but can't on it's own act outside of the inputs it was given. So the central divide seems to be when it comes time for action- was there an alternative?
The problem I'm having with this model is it's supposedly the 'scientific' side. But it has safely put itself outside the realm of the testable. Because it's not predetermined, it's not actually testable. This machine might have chosen an alternative but because all the conditions must be met and
But since you are learning entity no two situations are ever the same.
We have no way of knowing whether or not their was an alternative because we can never go back to test it repeatedly. And no this is not an argument from ignorance. The observable is the action/behaviour. The interpretation is 'there was no choice after input' or 'there was choice after input'
If you are a believer in a free will and suddenly tomorrow have it proven to you that free will does not exist, would you act any different? And conversely, if you had always thought all your actions were caused by physics reactions in the neurones of the brain and suddenly tomorrow you found out that scientists have discovered proof of humans having a free will, would you act any different?
Well no, I don't think there would be a difference in behaviour. That's because de facto we already behave as though we have free will. That's the problem, the determinism describes a reality entirely unlike what we experience. So unless we're in the Matrix, it's not going to change. But that's what I mean by smuggling in free will ideas. You have a theory on determinism, but your foundation is free will to even live coherently.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
Most libertarian philosophers who use QM as the basis for indeterminism in the brain think it does provide free will. It should be noted that quantum mechanical events in the brain are reinterpreted to be part of the agent, meaning that we shouldn't think of these as weird arbitrary events that make us do erratic behavior, but the same as other mental processes like deliberation and reading and whatever. They generally assert that these undetermined events are guided by our reasons, meaning that there's like a 50% chance that you'll decide to eat ice cream and a 50% chance you'll eat a hamburger instead. The out here is that you redefine these apparently arbitrary events to be in accordance with the agent's reasons and beliefs, then use the fact that they're undetermined to place it in a more tenable position that deterministic mental processes, which look bad.
This doesn't suffice as an argument for free will, because people define free will as the conscious being consciously choosing behavior. To suggest that the "agent," in other words the body, is determined to a point and then has some uncontrolled randomness thrown in is not what the vast majority of people would define as free will. In other words, it is trying to redefine the term to avoid the problem at hand.
Also, with regard to 5), earlier you said causation is equivalent to deterministic causation, which isn't generally held to be true. If I put some kind of radioactive chemical in someone's pocket, there's only a probabilistic chance it will end up killing them, but most people still agree that I would have caused that person's death. So this is the avenue libertarians take to say the agent can nondeterministically cause his own actions.
In #5 I referred to both caused and uncaused events being possible, not just determinism. I'm not sure what you even mean by referring to the "probabilistic chance" of a person's death. Either the person's death is determined and we are simply ignorant of the cause, in which case I would refer you to point #1, or the radioactivity itself is arbitrary, in which case I would refer to my previous statement.
Well, if people define free will as "the conscious being consciously choosing behavior" then certainly we have it. What do you think most people define free will as? It seems like indeterministic accounts of free will that propose that the agent's actions are nondeterministically caused by his beliefs and desires w/r/t the world have a decent grasp of what most people mean by free will. It seems like "we" are choosing to do our actions in this scenario.
For the second thing, what previous statement are you talking about? What I was saying was that your statement that "free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused" only emerges because you don't allow for nondeterministic causation, while most philosophers accept it.
I never have a problem with thinking about determinism. Think about it on the scale of molecules. If an atoms are swayed left and right down to the quantum level, who cares? We still have a very good understanding of how the laws of physics operate on a practicle level. My first assumption is that the brain manifests our experience. We know for a fact we can change that experience by modifying the brain via chemicals (coffee anyone?), environmental changes, and even changing the structure of the brain. Knowing the nature of cause and effect we have a pretty good basis for the assumption that our free will is merely us experiencing the cause of and effect, we output the effect with our "decisions".
I love the whole mind body debate. A better question in my mind, why is our consciousness experienced by our respective selves as opposed to someone else's. Which brings up to the question, why is the experience of our conscious required for something we are so very close to explaining as simply being a chemical/electrical/organic machine and how is it manifested.
this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
On March 06 2012 11:07 Toxi78 wrote: this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Your thoughts are explained by the chemical and electrical workings in your brain. Much like a computer carries information, your brain is doing the same thing. When you think of something, certain regions of your brain flash up in electrical activity. We know for a fact what certain parts of the brain are used in, for instance math as opposed to thinking of a purple unicorn.
We have no evidence of a duality or anything beyond the material. Where did you get that idea from?
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: The problem I'm having with this model is it's supposedly the 'scientific' side. But it has safely put itself outside the realm of the testable. Because it's not predetermined, it's not actually testable. This machine might have chosen an alternative but because all the conditions must be met and
But since you are learning entity no two situations are ever the same.
We have no way of knowing whether or not their was an alternative because we can never go back to test it repeatedly. And no this is not an argument from ignorance. The observable is the action/behaviour. The interpretation is 'there was no choice after input' or 'there was choice after input'
Look at it this way... If we knew the position and momentum of every single particle in the atmosphere and on the earth, and had sufficient calculation ability, then we could predict the weather. Is this a fair assumption?
Now it's clear we do not have that calculation ability. So suppose someone were to pop up and say, "we can't predict the weather's behavior, so how do we know the weather isn't CHOOSING it's course, and is independent of cause and effect?" Now any person that suggested such a thing would be laughed away, because there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, it's just some random postulation, and besides, we can reasonably predict the weather with limited accuracy, implying there is determinism at work.
Now if you say, "but humans are different than storms..." How are we different? We are both made of particles. We both run according to the laws of the universe. And we both can be predicted with limited accuracy. Did you know there are actuarial tables that can predict the recidivism rate of convicted criminals with fairly good probability? And so just because we cannot scientifically predict an action with 100% assurance you want to reject all of determinism?
And you claim this isn't an argument from ignorance? Of course it is. We cannot predict behavior because we cannot calculate all the factors involved, but that doesn't mean that determinism doesn't exist, or that it makes an exception for the human brain.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
Much of my politics are determined by determinism. For example, I favor rehabilitation of criminals over punishment or retributive justice, because I understand that free will is a myth. I'm not sure specifically what post you are referring to, but in general I believe that a society based upon voluntary behavior is preferable to one based upon coercion. Personal responsibility is not incompatible with determinism, because an awareness of personal responsibility will influence the behavior of the individual in predictable ways, much like government dependency will influence the individual in predictable ways.
On March 06 2012 11:07 Toxi78 wrote: this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Your thoughts are explained by the chemical and electrical workings in your brain. Much like a computer carries information, your brain is doing the same thing. When you think of something, certain regions of your brain flash up in electrical activity. We know for a fact what certain parts of the brain are used in, for instance math as opposed to thinking of a purple unicorn.
We have no evidence of a duality or anything beyond the material. Where did you get that idea from?
no need to be condescending. where is your evidence that there is nothing beyond material? does anyone here actually believe that all our system of thought, culture, feelings, thoughts is just the expression of a cold determinism that decides how the particles in our brains move? and don't get fooled, i study mathematics and physics on a level much higher than 99% of you, but this intelligence also enables me not to fall for sophisms like "you can also do one thing anyway, so whatever the decision is, it means there was no alternative". you can't really believe in that can you?
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
Thinking like a determinist: That individual who committed a crime must have done it for a reason, or they are irrational and should be put in a mental hospital. Because I can't fix someones bad upbringing, luck, or childhood that lead them to that crime, they should still be dealt with.
On March 06 2012 11:07 Toxi78 wrote: this is all making the presupposition that the universe is only the material. why not believe in the duality of the world ? and please, it has nothing to do with god or religion, but please go ahead and explain what a "thought" that i can form in my spirit is, the fact that if i imagine a song i can sing it in my head but noone else hears it etc. i don't believe it's the way random particles move that makes me imagine the things i do, otherwise randomness is pretty good, it makes me think of people i actually know and food i wanna eat and shit, quite amazing xD
Your thoughts are explained by the chemical and electrical workings in your brain. Much like a computer carries information, your brain is doing the same thing. When you think of something, certain regions of your brain flash up in electrical activity. We know for a fact what certain parts of the brain are used in, for instance math as opposed to thinking of a purple unicorn.
We have no evidence of a duality or anything beyond the material. Where did you get that idea from?
no need to be condescending. where is your evidence that there is nothing beyond material? does anyone here actually believe that all our system of thought, culture, feelings, thoughts is just the expression of a cold determinism that decides how the particles in our brains move? and don't get fooled, i study mathematics and physics on a level much higher than 99% of you, but this intelligence also enables me not to fall for sophisms like "you can also do one thing anyway, so whatever the decision is, it means there was no alternative". you can't really believe in that can you?
Absolutely do I not believe it as pure fact. Is it the most likely and coherent of all plausible theories? For me? Yes.
edit: sorry, I forgot to answer your question. Burden of proof isn't on me to come up with proof to deny the existence of the non-material, much like it would be silly to disprove the existence of purple space unicorns. No one knows for a fact. I will completely respect your beliefs no matter what, I don't want to seem rude.
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
Thinking like a determinist: That individual who committed a crime must have done it for a reason, or they are irrational and should be put in a mental hospital. Because I can't fix someones bad upbringing, luck, or childhood that lead them to that crime, they should still be dealt with.
Huh? I haven't said anything that you've claimed here. I'm just stating a lack of free will doesn't mean that we should all be careless about what other people do. I don't know how infered my views of prevention, rehabilitation and isolation. Or why I think people do what they do.
On March 06 2012 10:59 Falling wrote: There is no additional input from from the 'person.' But the action is not predetermined because this machine can learn (and also is self-aware).
The 'person' is actually the brain, it is getting all the input from the 'person' as well, you are your brain/body.
And to people like liberal. I don't see how you can argue determinism here and yet argue personal responsibility in the political threads. Which is it? (Or is it of both.)
I think that even if there is no free will, we have to recognize that this oranism/brain/individual who committed a crime chose or chooses actions that are unfavorable to the well-being of everyone else, so they have to be dealt with in one way or another.
Thinking like a determinist: That individual who committed a crime must have done it for a reason, or they are irrational and should be put in a mental hospital. Because I can't fix someones bad upbringing, luck, or childhood that lead them to that crime, they should still be dealt with.
Huh? I haven't said anything that you've claimed here. I'm just stating a lack of free will doesn't mean that we should all be careless about what other people do. I don't know how infered my views of prevention, rehabilitation and isolation. Or why I think people do what they do.
I was just adding in, that was directed not to you, but to the whole argument of "No one is responsible because no free will" thing going on.
On March 06 2012 09:25 mcc wrote: Just because the time and space starting at big bang show limits of our natural language and brain that evolved in macroscopic world where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable does not mean that just because you feel it is bullshit, because it feels uncomfortable, it actually is bullshit. Unlike you people proposing that have some rational arguments on their side. You just have :"I feel it is bullshit". Also to show it even better : "light beeing a wave or particle depending on what the observer wants to find" is nonsense.
Its not about "feeling" its wrong, its more like an inherent contradiction in the theory. "Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[37]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) In my opinion that is impossible, there is nothing that is real and infinite. They simply have no idea and come up with such bullshit. To me that is no a valid 'rational argument'.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
1) causality might be - like Kant said - something that we with our evolved monkey brains impose on the world to make experience possible. 2) I agree. Especially since we dont know the transitions from micro to macro physics. 3) It does matter, but u said before "How can it not matter? The opinions you hold will influence your behavior." If you are a determinist, that's a pretty problematic right there. Opinions are certainly nothing materialistic, yet they shall influence behaviour. If that is so, how can u have any problems imaging a free will that is not materialistic, yet influences our behaviour? Youre probably gonna tell me opinions are reflected in brain constellations, but the transition from brain constellation to opinion (or from body to mind etc.) is still totally unclear. 4) they do. Those principles are just part of the common and you're world view. I agree that they are true, but i would not agree that they fit or can be applied to the world. Same with mathematics. Mathematics are true, because thats how they are defined, but they rely on axioms that may not be questioned. Mathematics and logics in itself are totally independent from reality, that is the only reason they can be defined as true. Nothing grants that they can be applied to anything real. 5) Yes there is. It might be partly caused, partly uncaused. Under 'uncaused' i understand here, that its caused by transzendental freedom, which starts a new causal chain in the world, that mixes with other causal chains.
On March 06 2012 09:59 liberal wrote: Philosophy students run themselves in illogical psychological circles using concepts which had no basis from the very beginning, and arrive at no conclusions while the world is being explained around them by scientists.
That is dump and unreflected. Philophers have always created frameworks and conditions in which science was made possible. From Aristotle to Descartes and Kant that was always one of their main intentions. We wouldnt have todays science (that could make you believe it would explain the world to you) without those philosophers. At least philosophy students know how our modern world view developed and that its certainly not without flaws. If you know the history of certain "laws", principles and concepts, you would understand better that your view is pretty one-sided and narrow-minded. And my conclusion is we have a free will.
Also I have to disagree with you that humans and "weather" are made of particles, because in fact, no such things exist. There are no smallest particles called atoms or quarks or anything that everything is made of. Space can be divided limitlessly and also things that are in space.
maybe every one of our actions is pre-destined on a higher level. even if it is - who cares. given a sufficiently detailed illusion, it makes no difference to how we feel.
also on the topic of free will, i'll just chuck in this song by tool (one of my favourites). also mirrors to some extent the thoughts expressed in the desert scene in the brothers karamazov by dostoyevsky.
On March 06 2012 09:50 travis wrote: I am not gonna read the thread right now because it's too long, but I would like to contribute a couple of my thoughts about free will (a topic I have thought about a ton).
1.) Realistically, free will is just a term that describes how we interpret things. Determinism doesn't stop free will from existing. What more could there possibly be than the experience of free will. We know of no transcendental phenomena that could explain free will, it's actually unfathomable. Something being predetermined has no bearing on whether or not you choose it, it's a fallacy to think it does.
2.) If for some reason free will must be some sort of transcendental thing for you then it could be explained by each of us (or at least me) having a personal universe that is created around the choices we make (which I believe physicists have talked about this a lot actually). The problem then is "what constitutes a choice" and "who is making the choices"[buddhism 101]. When you ask those questions the concept of free will falls apart again and I would suggest going back to #1
Regardless if determinism could stop free will or not, what makes the existence of free will the default position? A big reason I doubt free will exists personally is probably simply because I haven't heard of anything that indicates that it does.
because people experience choicemaking and people believe what they experience also it crushes people's egos and makes it unreasonable to judge others if things are predetermined
On March 06 2012 09:50 travis wrote: I am not gonna read the thread right now because it's too long, but I would like to contribute a couple of my thoughts about free will (a topic I have thought about a ton).
1.) Realistically, free will is just a term that describes how we interpret things. Determinism doesn't stop free will from existing. What more could there possibly be than the experience of free will. We know of no transcendental phenomena that could explain free will, it's actually unfathomable. Something being predetermined has no bearing on whether or not you choose it, it's a fallacy to think it does.
2.) If for some reason free will must be some sort of transcendental thing for you then it could be explained by each of us (or at least me) having a personal universe that is created around the choices we make (which I believe physicists have talked about this a lot actually). The problem then is "what constitutes a choice" and "who is making the choices"[buddhism 101]. When you ask those questions the concept of free will falls apart again and I would suggest going back to #1
Regardless if determinism could stop free will or not, what makes the existence of free will the default position? A big reason I doubt free will exists personally is probably simply because I haven't heard of anything that indicates that it does.
because people experience choicemaking and people believe what they experience also it crushes people's egos and makes it unreasonable to judge others if things are predetermined
So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness, and it's relation to our subjective feelings.
I mean, I've known that for a long time, it's just funny to hear someone say it outright
Is what you do really even what YOU want to do, or just a environmentally constructed viewpoint that's been filtered a thousand times over?
How can you make a choice that isn't colored with the choice and will of those around you, your society, how you've grown, how you view the world?
You can't, not really, until society fosters that to the point where all of those environmental conflicts are reduced to no longer being conflicts at all, but mirrors of inner desire in the first place.
Arguing that religion makes that impossible is just a preposterous as arguing that religion makes that possible.
Religion is just a hot topic word.
Religion is just a synonym for "system of organized thought that attempts to drive towards something" in the sterilized sense that it should be used in, in such enlightened transcendent conversation. Religion is never meant to be an end unto itself, just a means.
And now my Pragmatist American forefathers will eat me alive
On March 06 2012 12:05 liberal wrote: So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness, and it's relation to our subjective feelings. I mean, I've known that for a long time, it's just funny to hear someone say it outright
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
Free will isn't a fundamental tenant of Christianity, and there's a lot of verses that seem to oppose it, as you've pointed out. Sovereignty (the idea that God is in control of everything in the universe in some way) is essentially the Christian version of determinism, and a lot of people feel there's a much stronger case for that in the bible than there is for rampant free will.
I feel like the main reason people stand by free will so vehemently is because it gives an easy out for hard questions like why God permits people to harm each other, not because there's actually much basis for it.
So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness
Is it more important that the idea is useful or true? It doesn't bother me that ethics aren't true in a scientifically verifiable sense, as long as you keep on not killing me and taking my stuff.
On March 06 2012 12:11 ShatterZer0 wrote: Define freedom.
Is freedom making the choices you want to make?
Is what you do really even what YOU want to do, or just a environmentally constructed viewpoint that's been filtered a thousand times over?
How can you make a choice that isn't colored with the choice and will of those around you, your society, how you've grown, how you view the world?
You can't, not really, until society fosters that to the point where all of those environmental conflicts are reduced to no longer being conflicts at all, but mirrors of inner desire in the first place.
That isn't all necessarily a bad thing, is it? When you talk about your "environment" influencing your choices, it sounds sort of sterile and gross, but wouldn't it be weird if you didn't at least consider the feelings and opinions of your friends, your family, etc. when you're making really serious, big moral decisions? In the same vein, your past experiences, your preferences, things like that, these are part of your choice-making "environment", no? But again, it would be rather strange if you require that "free" choices don't take these into consideration. Obviously the extreme extension of this where all of your choices are locked in by societal pressure or whatever strikes most of us as undesirable, but that doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The problem with the bolded statement is that it's taking an all or none stance, when in fact there is much grey area to cover. Let's take a look at the probabilty within the randomness of quantum mechanics. Let's make a simplistic example to make it as clear is possible. Let's say that within 3 events or "actions", 2 of them are within the realm of free will, while the 3rd falls into the random nature of quantum mechanics. The key here is that the 3 actions can be independent of each other.
As much as people would like to beleive that every single action is interconnected with each other, they don't have to be.
On March 06 2012 12:05 liberal wrote: So we judge the truthfulness of an idea by considering the ideas usefulness, and it's relation to our subjective feelings. I mean, I've known that for a long time, it's just funny to hear someone say it outright
It's your environment that offers you the choices you have. I think that's where people tend to get the idea of free will because the environment appears to be chaotic as there's too much unknown information. While you might be aware of all the events that led to you buying an ice cream at an ice cream truck, you will probably not be aware of every event that led to the ice cream truck selling you ice cream. It's also your environment that offers you to not buy ice cream. You don't choose randomly, but you're offered choices randomly.
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
I also feel like, recently, being atheist, super skeptical, anti-government of any kind, anti-free will, and pro science for absolutely everything everywhere has become the "hipster" thing. And this is coming from an atheist at a liberal arts institution.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
going off of the whole idea of "the future predicting machine" or the idea of knowing the future and then doing something different. Though im not sold on the idea that there is NO free will, I do think you cant disprove the argument against it by saying that you were SUPPOSED to do one thing and you did another. I dont think the machine would be able to predict the exact events of the future but rather come up with a percentage chance that certain things would occur. Again this would not prove free will it would just mean at the very beginning of this biological process that our predetermined decision is born from there is a random chance for us to do any of multiple things.
On a side note OP should make a post about what true justice is, or some other heavy philosophical questions =). I love these.
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but fellow Horseman of Sam Harris is Daniel Dennett. He gives a good description of why free will and determinism are not contrary to one another or even opposed. The whole idea of something being inevitable is poorly defined.
It gets tiresome reading all these topics that attack religion or try to attach some misconception that tries to seperate religion from intellect. It's always from the same angle too, especially with Harris. I'm not going to try to defend my beliefs here because I don't have the time to write an essay or the skills to do it justice, but if people are truly interested in a good book on the topic, read The Problem of Pain by Lewis.
I just saw him speak in Boulder, Colorado. In his presentation he had excellent thought out arguments for many of the points brought up in this discussion. If I felt capable of properly articulating them I would but I don't, so I recommend reading his book. That goes for people on both sides of the argument. Also, I highly recommend seeing him speak if you have the chance, I had an excellent time tonight.
On March 06 2012 14:06 DoubleReed wrote: I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but fellow Horseman of Sam Harris is Daniel Dennett. He gives a good description of why free will and determinism are not contrary to one another or even opposed. The whole idea of something being inevitable is poorly defined.
When I watch videos like that, I can help but view it as a person doing their damnedest to squirm their way out of an "inevitable" truth using pure semantics.
There was a much better video someone posted a few pages back. I recommend everyone interested in this issue watch it.
Well that basically leads to Kant's antinomy of free will in relation to universal causality, if you want to concept that free will in a deterministic world. For Dennet as for Harris i can say that i admire their desire to throw the whole discussion from the dawn of Enlightenment 400 years ago into our times and make it an actual subject of controversity, but please don't make the mistake to "beleive!" that this is top of the art science. In fact it is more like the best way to make money in a controversity-hungry market of popular enlightenment literature. But its good to have those kind of conversations and somebody has to be the King where kids start to recognize he's not wearing anything.
And like Fukuyama said 1992, the History is over guys. Sowjetunion is gone, now there is only the torch of freedom resting in the Hands of brave American Soldiers being carried throughout the lands all over the Globe. We will now move on to rational behaviour, being determined by a free market, because humans cant get any more free, but the market can! So please subscribe to harris on twiter (@SamHarrisOrg) and facebook at Sam Harris
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic. There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
"Whadaya know? This <Insert System/Mechanism Here> is ignoring every other system/mechanism in the universe! It's completely acting on its own. It has free will."
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Incoming speculation/armchair neuro: The conflict/indesision might come from a complex pattern of stimulation and inhibition and at some point(s) in the circuitry a level of stimulation/inhibition needs to be reached in order to make a decision and take action. If that level is not reached but your goal is to resolve this decision then perhaps this leads to more brain areas associated with the problem getting activated** (more memories, evaluations, etc) until something wins over... and I don't see how "you" could decide what will win over.
In fact, I think the lack of free will can explain the other things you mentioned such as irrational decisions. Some people can't or have a really hard time choosing the course of action that they would like to take, there are drug addicts out there who really want to quit so they can get their children back, they don't want to use it anymore, they know it's going to ruin their life... yet that compulsion kicks in and they're reaching for the telephone to call their dealer. There are countless of examples of irrational behaviors that are debilitating. So I'm not sure how these decisions that go against reason or nature are clues that point to freewill.
-** I will try to look up studies that might or might not show this (the longer the decision making the more brain activation there is hypothesis), I'm just going with the general trend in neuroimaging studies that the more complex a task becomes the more areas/surface becomes active.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic. There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
"Whadaya know? This <Insert System Here> is ignoring every other system in the universe! It's completely acting on its own. It has free will"
Well that would probably be the day i killed myself. I couldn't live with either of these answers being solid. I want to beleive in free will when educating my children and i want to rely on determinisim when my wife dies.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Incoming speculation/armchair neuro: The conflict/indesision might come from a complex pattern of stimulation and inhibition and at some point(s) in the circuitry a level of stimulation/inhibition needs to be reached in order to make a decision and take action. If that level is not reached but your goal is to resolve this decision then perhaps this leads to more brain areas associated with the problem getting activated (more memories, evaluations, etc) until something wins over... and I don't see how "you" could decide what will win over. In fact, I think the lack of free will can explain the other things you mentioned such as irrational decisions. Some people can't or have a really hard time choosing the course of action that they would like to take, there are drug addicts out there who really want to quit so they can get their children back, they don't want to use it anymore, they know it's going to ruin their life... yet that compulsion kicks in and they're reaching for the telephone to call their dealer. There are countless of examples of irrational behaviors that are debilitating. So I'm not sure how these decisions that go against reason or nature are clues that point to freewill.
These arguments explain perfectly well how things work, but they don't necessarily explain the driving cause. I don't really see how any of your paragraph excludes choice from the scenario.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic.
There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
This. At the moment people aren't even capable of explaining the mechanics by which they imagine free will might work. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems strange to me that, when asked, nobody can give an actual definition of free will without using weird (and ultimately useless) abstractions or fallacious reasoning. Basically, people don't even know what they mean when they say 'free will exists'. I find the whole concept uncoincidentally similar to the concept of a 'soul'. The soul is something for which there is no evidence and which helps to explain nothing, and yet people will continue believing in the soul for no other reason than that they find it comforting (although they won't tell you that). Free will is exactly the same in my opinion.
What's even stranger to me is that there are smart people - philosophers even - engaging in the debate when it seems so obviously stupid. Even Daniel Dennet managed to look... well, pretty retarded in that video. The guy asking him the questions seems to have a better grasp of the issue than him.
I don't know. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this whole debate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic.
There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
This. At the moment people aren't even capable of explaining the mechanics by which they imagine free will might work. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems strange to me that, when asked, nobody can give an actual definition of free will without using weird (and ultimately useless) abstractions or fallacious reasoning. Basically, people don't even know what they mean when they say 'free will exists'. I find the whole concept uncoincidentally similar to the concept of a 'soul'. The soul is something for which there is no evidence and which helps to explain nothing, and yet people will continue believing in the soul for no other reason than that they find it comforting (although they won't tell you that). Free will is exactly the same in my opinion.
What's even stranger to me is that there are smart people - philosophers even - engaging in the debate when it seems so obviously stupid. Even Daniel Dennet managed to look... well, pretty retarded in that video. The guy asking him the questions seems to have a better grasp of the issue than him.
I don't know. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this whole debate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.
Maybe we should focus on answering a specific question, like:
"The last time you ordered food, did you use free will or not?"
1. Explain your train of thought 2. Explain what you think happened in your brain 3. How would a scientist/philosopher/pastor explain what you just did?
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Incoming speculation/armchair neuro: The conflict/indesision might come from a complex pattern of stimulation and inhibition and at some point(s) in the circuitry a level of stimulation/inhibition needs to be reached in order to make a decision and take action. If that level is not reached but your goal is to resolve this decision then perhaps this leads to more brain areas associated with the problem getting activated (more memories, evaluations, etc) until something wins over... and I don't see how "you" could decide what will win over. In fact, I think the lack of free will can explain the other things you mentioned such as irrational decisions. Some people can't or have a really hard time choosing the course of action that they would like to take, there are drug addicts out there who really want to quit so they can get their children back, they don't want to use it anymore, they know it's going to ruin their life... yet that compulsion kicks in and they're reaching for the telephone to call their dealer. There are countless of examples of irrational behaviors that are debilitating. So I'm not sure how these decisions that go against reason or nature are clues that point to freewill.
These arguments explain perfectly well how things work, but they don't necessarily explain the driving cause. I don't really see how any of your paragraph excludes choice from the scenario.
The driving cause? Billions of years of evolution.
I was just replying to some of your statements without getting into my reasoning behind the lack of free will. I will get into that now but only shortly.... basically to have free will as you define it, there would have to be a loci or a set of loci that would make up your "conscience" and somehow, someway, these loci can fire at will ("your" will) to influence how several other parts of the brain are going to work. Or that the brain as a whole is a conscience that is able to independently make a decisions. I don't see how that is possible. It makes more sense to me that this decision making process is fully interdependant on the rest of the brain, thay everything influences eachother and which eventually leads to a decision.
I am kind of confused here. I believe in a God. But to do so is to affirm that the universe is deterministic. I think we have limited free will. But our entire lives are predetermined.Belief in freewill and true randomness is usually a factor of ignorance. If we can't predict a pattern or system, if we can't understand how it functions we infer it to be random.
I believe in God because I am simply a by product of this Universe.My entire life, my intelligence, my personality and whatever else that makes me is a infinitesimal form of this Universe. If this Universe is the highest plane of existence then it is God.
[B]On March 06 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:[/B}
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Basically the concept goes back to the fact that currently scientific understanding is that every thing in the universe, including our brains/bodies behave according to action/reaction or cause/effect, and therefore if someone knew the conditions of every particle/force/whatever, they would be able to tell what would happen next. These physical laws also apply to our brains/neurons chemical/electrical signals, which is how neuroscientists are able to invoke actions/emotion/thoughts into people/animals by applying electrical shocks.
Genetics and environment are just some of the bigger factors that determine our actions, but like the butterfly effect, even the smallest things may have been a factor. So using the comparison of our brains to super computers, even computers take time to process information to come to an output (decision), leading to indecision. If a computer was programmed to have apathy under certain conditions, it would be able to have apathy, like by if there were 2 equally good outputs, it would choose one by random.
[B]On March 06 2012 13:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:[/B}
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
I see a lot of posts in this thread saying that your environment or your genetic design is what determines how you decide things. However, I would look at these more like influences on how you think and not determining factors. Can those of you that think there's no free will explain why we feel the feeling of indecision, conflict over a decision, apathy, or the endless examples of someone going completely against reason, nature, or nurture when they choose something? Also, I feel like arguing that we have no free will can fall into the trap of just saying, "Well you were predetermined to do that" since you can never really disprove that idea.
Basically the concept goes back to the fact that currently scientific understanding is that every thing in the universe, including our brains/bodies behave according to action/reaction or cause/effect, and therefore if someone knew the conditions of every particle/force/whatever, they would be able to tell what would happen next. These physical laws also apply to our brains/neurons chemical/electrical signals, which is how neuroscientists are able to invoke actions/emotion/thoughts into people/animals by applying electrical shocks.
Genetics and environment are just some of the bigger factors that determine our actions, but like the butterfly effect, even the smallest things may have been a factor. So using the comparison of our brains to super computers, even computers take time to process information to come to an output (decision), leading to indecision. If a computer was programmed to have apathy under certain conditions, it would be able to have apathy, like by if there were 2 equally good outputs, it would choose one by random.
It would be interesting if we eventually had a set of inputs to create an predictable output consistently to disprove the theory of free will as clear as black and white. For example if we knew the exact methodology and prerequisites of bringing up a child wanting to become a fireman and determine the exact hobbies and foods he liked.
Currently the closest we have is marketing and politics.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
On March 06 2012 15:28 KingAce wrote: I am kind of confused here. I believe in a God. But to do so is to affirm that the universe is deterministic. I think we have limited free will. But our entire lives are predetermined.Belief in freewill and true randomness is usually a factor of ignorance. If we can't predict a pattern or system, if we can't understand how it functions we infer it to be random.
I believe in God because I am simply a by product of this Universe.My entire life, my intelligence, my personality and whatever else that makes me is a infinitesimal form of this Universe. If this Universe is the highest plane of existence then it is God.
That doesn't seem anything like the conventional definition of God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent agent.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
There are many verses in the bible that seem incomplete, or off-kilter, especially the oldest ones. As a Mormon, I believe the Bible is true, as far as it is translated correctly. A few verses, such as God hardening Pharoah's heart are inconsistent with the vast majority of scripture supporting the principle of individual agency, and may be mistranslations that are sure to come up after thousands of years.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
I think you're being simplistic and overly abstract here. Omnipotent may not mean the power to do anything. God must still abide by natural and eternal principles that give him his virtue and power. However, even if he could, that does not mean he would want to control his children, beyond teaching them, guiding them, and letting them choose for themselves to trust him fully.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
I don't think your conclusion is makes sense here. God is a parent, who wants His children to learn and grow. He teaches them correct principles and allows them to learn for themselves, just like any parent. The loving decision to allow agency to a child does not mean that a wise parent with experience cannot see the pitfalls ahead, nor would a wise parent always prevent them from occurring.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
This final point has some assumptions that I question the validity of: 1 - Eating the fruit was bad, and God did not want it to happen 2 - Everyone's going to hell because of it 3 - God allowing his children to make mistakes is bad 4 - God acts independent of natural moral laws, such as the law of agency
I have more thoughts to share regarding a Christian (and some uniquely Mormon) perspectives on religion and free will. I'll try to share them sometime in the next day or two.
... I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
I appreciate the simplistic way that you've approached this topic, but unfortunately things are not this cut and dry. I am certainly not qualified to be discussing quantum mechanics and matters of the such, but what I can tell you and what others will tell you is that there are still gaping holes that need to be reconciled before we can start drawing vast conclusions like you have here. Keep in mind that it is the theory of quantum mechanics, not a law. Good discussion though.
At the end of the day, the laws of the universe are descriptive, not prescriptive. What this means is that the behaviour of the universe doesn't follow the laws of physics, but rather, the laws of physics follow the behaviour of the universe. The concept of free will fits into a deterministic universe by providing a convenient framework under which the descriptions of certain phenomena can be greatly simplified.
A useful analogy is object-oriented programming. In coding up a game like starcraft, for example, one might define a "Marine" object to represent a marine, and methods like "Marine.IssueMoveCommand()" or "Marine.PlayDeathAnimation()" to pretend the marine really is a unit with commands that can be issed to it. On the most fundamental level, your computer is still executing a sequence of instructions to move bits of data around, and has absolutely no idea what a marine is, much like how the universe has no idea that a particular collection of particles might represent a dog. However, on the descriptive level, it is extremely useful for humans to think about it that way.
I've been reading through the thread and it looks like there is some talk about god's usuall attributes: omnipotence, omnibenvolence, and omniscience. From these three attribute come the Problem of Evil which says that if god is indeed all these three things then why is there evil? In response to this Plantinga offers the "free will defense" that says that there exists evil in the world because the greatest good that god could give us is free will and to interfere with that would cause more harm than any evil we could bring upon ourselves. What does everyone think of this? Does Plantinga's free will defense successfully counter the logical problem of evil. (It might be a good idea to look up the entire agument by Alvin Plantinga which is usually referred to as the "free will defense" and is quite well known)
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
When you have everything that constitutes a working human brain. You're oversimplifying everything and essentially saying we are all the exact same substance, which isn't the case. Yes, everything is made of the same general set of particles, but different combinations produce different results.
What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
Ask a biologist/chemist. The question of "what makes the specific composition of a human brain special from other compositions" really doesn't seem like it's an incredibly difficult question to answer if you have the proper education.
It's 70+% water.
I know I know. Too simplistic. But I believe this debate cant be settled philosophically. The answer has to be simplistic.
There has to be a point where free will is "Mechanically" demonstrated. It has to be proven or dis-proven at some point.
This. At the moment people aren't even capable of explaining the mechanics by which they imagine free will might work. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems strange to me that, when asked, nobody can give an actual definition of free will without using weird (and ultimately useless) abstractions or fallacious reasoning. Basically, people don't even know what they mean when they say 'free will exists'. I find the whole concept uncoincidentally similar to the concept of a 'soul'. The soul is something for which there is no evidence and which helps to explain nothing, and yet people will continue believing in the soul for no other reason than that they find it comforting (although they won't tell you that). Free will is exactly the same in my opinion.
What's even stranger to me is that there are smart people - philosophers even - engaging in the debate when it seems so obviously stupid. Even Daniel Dennet managed to look... well, pretty retarded in that video. The guy asking him the questions seems to have a better grasp of the issue than him.
I don't know. Maybe there's something I'm missing about this whole debate, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.
Maybe we should focus on answering a specific question, like:
"The last time you ordered food, did you use free will or not?"
1. Explain your train of thought 2. Explain what you think happened in your brain 3. How would a scientist/philosopher/pastor explain what you just did?
Can try to give honest short answers.
1) I don't remember the train of though from last time I ordered food and I probably don't really think much about it anyway. 2) I assume the actions were mainly based on reactions in the brain related to when and what I ate last time and many other factors like that, which resulted in ordering the food and the type of food I ordered. 3) Should depend on person. Most scientists and philosophers probably have about same view as I do and a lot of pastors probably do as well. While some would likely argue that there is no explanation, and so on.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
god IS good, but that doesn't mean we always are. Should we just be little robots running around with an already set path for us so we do no harm to anyone? We are our own souls, we control our own actions, we decide which path to take, everything we do influences the people around us. This is a test. If god wanted to he could vanish everyone that waged war, but he loves/believes in every one of us no matter how bad the sins we've committed. You're basically stating, "why does the lord let me and others have a brain that can think about greed, power, violence, etc...".
On March 06 2012 13:52 Don.681 wrote: What then makes the specific composition of a human brain special form other compositions? Is this exclusive to human brains? How about other animal's brains?
When exactly from sperm/egg to Adult brain is free will attained?
~18 months from birth for humans. Mirror Test It might not be "free will" but it is a point when a group of atoms starts to behave qualitatively differently than another similar group of atoms.
Self aware and self modifying makes the system less deterministic in a practical sense. The GM usually knows what the chaotic neutral rogue will do, but is often surprised by what the lawful good paladin chooses.
I've been reading through the thread and it looks like there is some talk about god's usuall attributes: omnipotence, omnibenvolence, and omniscience. From these three attribute come the Problem of Evil which says that if god is indeed all these three things then why is there evil?
Another way to frame the question is "Does scarcity have any utility?". I would argue it is exactly scarcity that gives life meaning. If everyone had everything then choice wouldn't matter, but we don't, so it does.
Now Im s littlw curios, if its the particles that chooses what one does and does not do, does that thoreticly mean you could calculate the future if you had the prossesing power? And then be able to see into the future?
I've been reading through the thread and it looks like there is some talk about god's usuall attributes: omnipotence, omnibenvolence, and omniscience. From these three attribute come the Problem of Evil which says that if god is indeed all these three things then why is there evil?
Another way to frame the question is "Does scarcity have any utility?". I would argue it is exactly scarcity that gives life meaning. If everyone had everything then choice wouldn't matter, but we don't, so it does.
The idea that I do not have control of my actions because electrons are governed by physics seems like a silly argument to make (and one that tries to separate mind and body). The problem with this argument is humans are capable of planning ahead. I know at 7:00 tomorrow morning I will drive to university. To do this, I will drive a car.
There is no law of physics that can be derived from this except to describe the path electrons are taking through my brain.
And if we want to derive these laws, we have to understand the basis of physics, which we as humans use to interpret physical events in the universe, aka modeling. We understand that energy follows a squared relationship from empirical data (specifically a ball falling into clay), and from this empirical data we derived a gravitational constant. We understand the motion of an electron based on our understanding of conduction. Because of these observations we generate mathematical models that best fit our interpretation. Why do you think constant like magnetic permeability exists, and why similar constants are present in almost all physical laws, the answer is we observe them empirically through well controlled experiments, and we use these constants to solidify our mathematical models (which we refer to as laws).
All of that said, as a human you understand the idea of control. It is easy for you to not commit an action. And in this context there is no flow of electrons, and thus no laws of physics at play. At any given instant you are not executing an infinite possibility of actions. And in this regard you are still controlling your actions (or lack thereof). For instance, I am not smoking, I told myself years ago that I would not, and up until now I still have not. A choice was made, execution was had, and the action persists, but my brain is not devoting any energy to the pursuit of not smoking (at least until these last few seconds I guess).
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
Like right now. You chose to respond to me. You chose to type certain words. Even if you were reacting to stimuli, there was nothing compelling you to 1) read 2) respond by typing 3) respond coherently. And furthermore respond to an argument about how the nature of the universe works.
I chose to response. But who or what is me in this sense? As I saw your posting, I read it because of the hammer which caught my attention. Then I remembered that I had a similar discussion that day. So it felt easy to get into the discussion since I already had my arguments thought out.
What is that "me" which decides what to do? It's my brain which reacts depending on sensory input and memory. "I" itself is an illusion I think. I am a life form with a neuronal net able to create a map (an image) based on sensory data input and locate myself in it. My nerve center (brain) is able to use the concept of "Me" in opposite to "You" or "them" because this makes it easier to interact with the world.
On March 06 2012 08:18 Falling wrote:It's not a freedom from physical laws so much as there is a conscious will that is able to make decisions- and we can learn a lot about the brain from brain activity. We can tell that you are dreaming based on brain activity, we can tell that you are thinking. But we actually have to talk to you to find out what the dream was or what you were specifically thinking about. We react to stimuli, our body operates within physical laws, we have fight or flight responses. All true. But we also discover, create, theorize, choose to play a video game, choose to create a video game, choose to hack a video game, choose create art, choose to appreciate art, choose to critique art, or choose to vandalize art.
I think the feat of theorizing is a process of evolutionary brain development. It helps us with pattern recognition and improves the quality of our predictions of the future. It enables us to build better shelter and do things with lower energy requirement. Art and its appreciation is probably a byproduct of our mind abilities.
We can discern a healthy, fertile woman (which provides good genes) from women who are less likely to provide us a fit offspring. We can see color because it helps no navigate in the environment and look for food. I guess those kinds are the source of our aesthetic sense. This idea is backed up by early art (fertile woman carved in stone found in Africa, idealized athletes created by ancient Greek carvers.)
I agree that we have much higher capabilies to suppress a need in favor of a desire than animals have. But does it mean that we have free will? Desire (I rather play another game of SC2 instead of finally making me something to eat) often favors an experience over a time-consuming caretaking about one's needs. But we are dependend on having experiences since we are bad at surviving naked and without shelter and without careful food planning. Without desire to have experiences we learn little new. Our ability to actually have desires which trump needs (at least for some time) could be seen as an evolutionary development. Some guys devoted their life to science, or art, or other things and forfeit an easy, convenient life. Otherwise we wouldn't be were we are now.
Since we are social beings, the concept of free will is useful, too. If someone does good or bad to us, we rather see it as his free will so that we can react accordingly (cooperate with him or punish him.)
On March 06 2012 08:18 Falling wrote:If we have a concept of free will despite there being no free will than it is a very powerful delusion. It's impossible to even go to work without operating under the assumption of free will. When the alarm goes, will you hit snooze? When you get up what will you wear, what will you eat? Will you eat? Will you go to work at all? Will pick the shortest route, will you speed? Will you run a red light or stop? Will you drive in the opposite lane? Will you drive on the sidewalk? Will you drive off the bridge? Hundreds of decisions, some of them rote, some based on the past, some of them more urgent. And if any point you stop to try and explain how this is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual then you have made the choice to stop and think about how it is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual. And then you can choose to think about how you are thinking about your thinking...
The concept of free will so dominates the way we live our lives that it would be impossible to function without it. And if it is a delusion then it is such a great delusion, that we have no reason to trust any other of observations of sight, smell, etc because it is all filtered through this entirely deluded brain of ours. So we have no way knowing whether our universe is deterministic because our means of knowing is faulty. And certainly something like emotions can be faulty. But my argument that this is SUCH a great delusion that it throws our entire thought process into question.
As Sam Harris pointed out in the piece I read (which is not from the book "Free Will"), the absence of free will doesn't mean one would stay in bed all day and wait what happens. The more time passes, the more will is needed to continue staying in bed instead of go up, eat something and so on.
What will I eat? Most times my body senses tell me what I will eat. The body can sense what he needs and choose accordingly. Then I think "oh, I have the appetite to eat that now". I could have chosen otherwise, against my needs. But to do this I need to have a certain state of mind which allows me to forget about my needs because another desire has more priority right now. How does such state of mind come to me? I think the answer is "it's in my genes". Through evolution I got a brain which is willing to sacrifice mundane pleasures for a long-term goal.
There is no reason to believe that our brains do not use the laws of physics to operate.. Neuroscience has shown that emotions and actions can be induced by electrical signals artificially induced. Chemicals in the form of hormones affect our decisions everyday, and chemicals can be used to bring us out of consciousness among other things. Studies have also shown that when when certain parts of the brains are separated from the rest of the brain strange things happen. These people have been shown to be aware of what they are doing, but have no control over what they are doing. People who have their left brains separated from their right brains have been shown to be unable to say what they are looking at with their right eyes, because the right side of the brain control speech, but the information from the right eye only goes into the left brain. They are able to say it by writing it down with their right hands, and using their left eye to see what their right hand wrote. These examples show how awareness/consciousness/free will is all an illusion derived from our highly complex brain being able to take into account immense amounts of input including things from far in the past in order to come to a decision in a situation.
I think there are a few kinds of arguments that really bug me, especially when god comes into play.
I cannot understand how someone can state that god does not obey logic, physics or any other way of thinking humans are capable of, and then start a side long deductive argument. I think that "kind of god" is principally fine, as by its definition you can't argue against it because as people get not tired of mentioning, it stays kind of above any model we are using, and as mentioned before laws of physics and logic are made up by humans and just descriptive. But if you assume that you can put the whole discussion into a box and put it on your bookshelf, because then theres no point of arguing about it at all, because you have to assume that no kind of language or method would be able to describe it.
So leaving the whole god thing beside, i think there's really little chance that free will exists in a way that it would justify the use of the words. Often times arguments where brought up that go like "I will take the bus tomorrow, and thats under my control, so i have a free will." But you could just programm a robot to make this statement. Schopenhauer said "You can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want" And i think that fits to that scenario.
The fact that you feel like you are controlling what your doing is not sufficient.
On March 06 2012 00:15 Uncultured wrote: Yep. Done trying. Talking to a brick wall.
You haven't made much of an attempt to show how free will is compatible with science.
If all you intended to do was to namedrop "stochastic" and link to articles on philosophy, then there's really no point, as the former is a debunked argument and the latter isn't science.
I'd love to see you cite some sources that suggest Stochastic Processes as debunked.... I wonder if you can understand the absurdity of such a notion.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists. Probably the 8th time I've said it in this thread, without anyone offering a counterargument.
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]
Now you're just going in circles. That very same article proposes a theory for compatabilism to be true, from Stephen Hawking himself. And that's exactly what this all is, theory. You keep citing physics as if this is all pinned down as fact, but even Hawking and Schrodinger both assert that they could be wrong about their beliefs of free will. You have cherry picked that single idea out of a plethora of possibilities and dote on only it, as fact.
You keep trying to make it out like I'm arguing for Free Will, when I'm not. I'm arguing that free will is a possibility, along with determinism, along with both of them working together.
In that very article it quotes Hawking saying that "free will is just an illusion".
It then goes on to talk about compatibilism. But as I've already stated, compatibilism is semantics, it redefines free will as a the ability to act on personal motivation regardless of what prior causes had led to them. By definition, I'm also a compatibilist, as is probably nearly everyone.
But this is obviously not the definition of free will which I was arguing against in the OP, and the 10 pages after. Free will is the ability to choose what you do independent of the state of the world. It's not conjectured that this free will I've talked about, instead of the compatibilist's definition, is inconsistent with our understanding of the universe, it's simply true in the sense that if free will exists, everything we know about the universe would be wrong. It would imply that the human brain can bend the laws of physics and can rearrange the of motions of particles according to whatever we will. Therefore, such a discovery would fundamentally contradict and rewrite all we know about physics. It is not a stretch to say that the free will I talked about in the OP is unscientific, unproven, and as false as fairies and gods.
You're argument has 2 points:
Firstly, you claim the universe is random, so free will is possible. But you've still not demonstrated how QM, can lead to free will, because you haven't made a single argument to refute my point that even in an nondeterministic and random universe governed by QM, and the laws of physics as we know it, free will is still not possible. Your actions would be determined by a uncontrolled RNG in such a universe.
Secondly, you say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies. Therefore, the only conclusion can be free will exists and everything we know about the universe is wrong, or free will doesn't exist. The option that free will exists, but everything we know about the universe is still correct is indefensible, and you've made no attempt to defend it.
yeh my take on free will is that it probably does not exist as every action (as in every single thing we do including thinking and feeling) we take is shaped by something that preceded itbe it genetic or something that you've experienced, like in the way you were raised, what you experienced thereafter and what cultural influences you had around you.
that being said, imo it would be a fatal mistake to use the "lack of free will" as an excuse for everything you do; you have to act "as if" you had free will in order to take responsibility for your actions and improve upon them, if you understand what i mean by this.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
On March 06 2012 00:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I always liked Compatibilism and the idea that determinism and free will are actually not mutually exclusive.
This specific argument for determinism seems entirely dependent on an idealized scientific holism, which quite frankly, probably isn't going to ever happen. Take away that assumption and it looks like the entire argument falls apart aside from being piece of metaphysical speculation filled with assumptions that needed scientific holism to be more than such.
Compatiblism is semantics. It waters down the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. If the universe is deterministic, I would be a compatiblist by definition.
What is scientific holism, and how does it relate to my argument? My argument is that free will is not consistent with the laws of physics, it's got nothing to do with viewing things as wholes.
Determinism rejecting free will is semantics in the same exact way and expects an unrealistic definition of free will, hence why it doesn't exist. Not necessarily though because if you're a deterministic individual who doesn't believe in free will you're not a compatibilist, the definition of compatibilism is that the universe is deterministic but we still have free will.
Scientific holism is the assumption that all science is capable of being unified, eventually we will be able to explain all phenomena in chemistry through pure physics in how particles interact, then biology, and continue to build up until we will eventually be able to explain everything through physics up to the point where human behavior can be mapped out and predicted. It relates extremely well to your argument since it's based on the fact that human behavior can be explained by particle interactions. If they can't be, then your understanding of the laws of the universe which are based on scientific holism won't fit so well anymore (which is more of an assumption than an understanding anyways).
Even if science is holistic (which again, we don't know whether it is or not but it sure as hell isn't right now), it doesn't necessarily follow that the laws of the universe force one to reject free will.
The definition of free will I used in the OP is not arbitrary. It's the one which is necessary for religionists to explain away the cause of evil in the world, since that is one of the main "applications" of the free will doctrine, and since it was the subject of the post.
There is no doubt that biology is applied chemistry, that chemistry is applied, physics, and that in principle, everything about biology and the human brain can be explained by physics. But there is a difference between principle and practice. In principle, we can understand macroeconomics by aggregating the individual choices of individual agents using microeconomics, but such a feat is essentially impossible in practice given the trillions of variables, possibilities and complexities, and the same is true for science.
Just as it is easier to understand aggregate demand and supply curves in macroeconomics than it is to combine the complexities and interactions of individual supply and demand curves for every agent in the economy, it is easier to study genetics as the inheritance of DNA than it as the totality of the motion of particles in a biological cell. To claim that biology cannot be fundamentally explain by physics in principle (though not in practice), is to assert that the laws of physics do not apply to biology. This would be absurd.
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.
Do you really? Why call people dogmatic then? Under the assumption of no free will everyone is dogmatic. You say "free will [...] is abused to justify the existence of evil." But if there's no free will there's no moral basis to condemn this behaviour.
Your statement has the structure: "There's no free will. Therefore you should stop using using it as an excuse." Or even more simply: "There's no free will. I demand that you stop what you are doing." Hope you see the absurdity in that.
As I've said, the universe works as if it had free will. People are sometimes convinced by compelling arguments, although this is very unlikely amongst those who accept religious dogma.
So the emotionally loaded language and the moral condemnation is just the laws of nature playing themselves out in one part of reality (you) affecting another (the mental state of your readers). I'd still hold that this kind of behaviour is inconsistent with your proffessed beliefs about reality but it would be unfair of me to criticise you for something that you have no controll over.
I could, hoping that this criticism, however unjustified, would cause the behaviour to change, but I have a suspicion it wouldn't.
If we extend this argument to it's logical extreme: why should I go to work tomorrow or do anything at all, if everything is predetermined?
The nonexistence of free will doesn't change the fact that I can't afford to feed myself without working.
If you want a more philosophical answer, I'm a compatiblist, i.e. I believe one does not have free will, but has weak free will, defined as the ability to do according to ones motivations (even if these motivations are not free). My motivations are to convince you I'm right, and obtain sustenance.
On March 06 2012 19:58 Imbaman wrote: There is no reason to believe that our brains do not use the laws of physics to operate.. Neuroscience has shown that emotions and actions can be induced by electrical signals artificially induced. Chemicals in the form of hormones affect our decisions everyday, and chemicals can be used to bring us out of consciousness among other things. Studies have also shown that when when certain parts of the brains are separated from the rest of the brain strange things happen. These people have been shown to be aware of what they are doing, but have no control over what they are doing. People who have their left brains separated from their right brains have been shown to be unable to say what they are looking at with their right eyes, because the right side of the brain control speech, but the information from the right eye only goes into the left brain. They are able to say it by writing it down with their right hands, and using their left eye to see what their right hand wrote. These examples show how awareness/consciousness/free will is all an illusion derived from our highly complex brain being able to take into account immense amounts of input including things from far in the past in order to come to a decision in a situation.
I think this is the best post I've read so far in the thread. Examples of Right and Left brain separation blows my mind, its like having another soul within your body.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.
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.
Do you really? Why call people dogmatic then? Under the assumption of no free will everyone is dogmatic. You say "free will [...] is abused to justify the existence of evil." But if there's no free will there's no moral basis to condemn this behaviour.
Your statement has the structure: "There's no free will. Therefore you should stop using using it as an excuse." Or even more simply: "There's no free will. I demand that you stop what you are doing." Hope you see the absurdity in that.
As I've said, the universe works as if it had free will. People are sometimes convinced by compelling arguments, although this is very unlikely amongst those who accept religious dogma.
So the emotionally loaded language and the moral condemnation is just the laws of nature playing themselves out in one part of reality (you) affecting another (the mental state of your readers). I'd still hold that this kind of behaviour is inconsistent with your proffessed beliefs about reality but it would be unfair of me to criticise you for something that you have no controll over.
I could, hoping that this criticism, however unjustified, would cause the behaviour to change, but I have a suspicion it wouldn't.
If we extend this argument to it's logical extreme: why should I go to work tomorrow or do anything at all, if everything is predetermined?
The nonexistence of free will doesn't change the fact that I can't afford to feed myself without working.
If you want a more philosophical answer, I'm a compatiblist, i.e. I believe one does not have free will, but has weak free will, defined as the ability to do according to ones motivations (even if these motivations are not free). My motivations are to convince you I'm right, and obtain sustenance.
you're right, it wouldn't really matter if you go to work tomorrow or not - but your body and mind are "programmed" to take care that you can continue existing (therefor, not starving), the logical consequence is to go to work so you can afford food.
its the one thing to say "free will doesn't exist, it doesn't matter what I do!" and the other to say "it doesn't matter what I do, therefor I could/should commit suicide (in your argument, in the form of stopping to work and starving to death)" the ladder wouldn't really matter either, it doesn't change anything in the overall situation if you go to work or not. BUT, it changes something for your very own situation. you aren't programmed/made/created whatever to like dying or love death, therefor you try to fight it. humans are like a stone rolling down a mountain (just a tad bit more complex), you cannot stop what you do, and therefor you don't WANT to stop it either. if the rolling stone could think, it'd want to continue rolling forever, since it'd be afraid of ever stopping. if a human stops rolling down, we call that dying, and we want to have the laws of physic and the outtern surroundings keep us rolling for as long as possible, simply because physics forces us to.
I'm not very good with words at all, and english isn't my first language, so sorry if something is a bit confusing or worded too harshly, have no ill intentions (nor do I want to push anyone into suicide or something stupid like that)
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
If what you say is true, then people would not have any control over a single thing they did in life ever. Except people do have choices in life. They are faced with millions of choices and these choices are subject to reason. Reasonably, your "decision to move" is your will, you have it right at the front of this chain of command. How do you describe a contradictory post and all together moot your own point? The mind is a complex feature that noone knows enough about to adiquitely describe a scenerio such as ones life being pre-determined. People have been debating this forever and both sides agree that there are some form of indeterminism is true! According to logic, then if experts in the area all agree that indeterminism exists how in the hell can you turn around and say it doesn't? Whereas, determinism has little to no factual backing and tons of theories floating with open ends left unproven.
But do you really have a choice to move or not? If you did have a choice, that would imply that you can, independent of the world, choose either to receive electrical impulse in the synapses of your brain that constitutes the intention to move or to receive a different electrical impulse which constitutes the intention to not move. Therefore, you imply that the motion of the elementary particles that makes up your thought are chosen by a human brain, as opposed to being dictated by the laws of physics acting on this system of particles from a prior state. This is absurd and contradicts our current understanding of physics.
Sam Harris has another point of view on the issue of humans feeling like they make choices, in the article I linked in the OP. Perhaps his exposition is more relatable:
In the early morning of July 23, 2007, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, two career criminals, arrived at the home of Dr. William and Jennifer Petit in Cheshire, a quiet town in central Connecticut. They found Dr. Petit asleep on a sofa in the sunroom. According to his taped confession, Komisarjevsky stood over the sleeping man for some minutes, hesitating, before striking him in the head with a baseball bat. He claimed that his victim’s screams then triggered something within him, and he bludgeoned Petit with all his strength until he fell silent.
The two then bound Petit’s hands and feet and went upstairs to search the rest of the house. They discovered Jennifer Petit and her daughters—Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11—still asleep. They woke all three and immediately tied them to their beds.
At 7:00 a.m., Hayes went to a gas station and bought four gallons of gasoline. At 9:30, he drove Jennifer Petit to her bank to withdraw $15,000 in cash. The conversation between Jennifer and the bank teller suggests that she was unaware of her husband’s injuries and believed that her captors would release her family unharmed.
While Hayes and the girls’ mother were away, Komisarjevsky amused himself by taking naked photos of Michaela with his cell phone and masturbating on her. When Hayes returned with Jennifer, the two men divided up the money and briefly considered what they should do. They decided that Hayes should take Jennifer into the living room and rape her—which he did. He then strangled her, to the apparent surprise of his partner.
At this point, the two men noticed that William Petit had slipped his bonds and escaped. They began to panic. They quickly doused the house with gasoline and set it on fire. When asked by the police why he hadn’t untied the two girls from their beds before lighting the blaze, Komisarjevsky said, “It just didn’t cross my mind.” The girls died of smoke inhalation. William Petit was the only survivor of the attack.
Upon hearing about crimes of this kind, most of us naturally feel that men like Hayes and Komisarjevsky should be held morally responsible for their actions. Had we been close to the Petit family, many of us would feel entirely justified in killing these monsters with our own hands. Do we care that Hayes has since shown signs of remorse and has attempted suicide? Not really. What about the fact that Komisarjevsky was repeatedly raped as a child? According to his journals, for as long as he can remember, he has known that he was “different” from other people, psychologically damaged, and capable of great coldness. He also claims to have been stunned by his own behavior in the Petit home: He was a career burglar, not a murderer, and he had not consciously intended to kill anyone. Such details might begin to give us pause.
Whether criminals like Hayes and Komisarjevsky can be trusted to honestly report their feelings and intentions is not the point: Whatever their conscious motives, these men cannot know why they are as they are. Nor can we account for why we are not like them. As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23, 2007—that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state—I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this. The role of luck, therefore, appears decisive.
A law is always system-bound (the consequence[s] of the law is/are related to a definite space), if we talk about laws of nature it is always an approximation and therefore a reduction of reality. 'Even' the laws of math are 'only' provable until the basic axioms within the system 'math'.
If you say we obey to the laws of nature you imply the existence of an ultimate law (respectively god). Or you have to accept that the numbers we get from our artificial tools are probabilitistic abstractions [ex ante] and our conclusions thereof are only true as long as a more comprising theory is developing.
On March 06 2012 21:53 BillClinton wrote: What is a law of nature?
A law is always system-bound (the consequence[s] of the law is/are related to a definite space), if we talk about laws of nature it is always an approximation and therefore a reduction of reality. 'Even' the laws of math are 'only' provable until the basic axioms within the system 'math'.
If you say we obey to the laws of nature you imply the existence of an ultimate law (respectively god). Or you have to accept that the numbers we get from our artificial tools are probabilitistic abstractions [ex ante] and our conclusions thereof are only true as long as a more comprising theory is developing.
What matters is not whether our laws are correct, but that there are laws underlying the mechanics of the universe. We didn't have more or less free will as we progressed from cavemen, to the time of Aristotle, to Newton, to Einstein.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists.
I do not see why anyone would try to demonstrate that free will exists, that in itself would be absurd. The use of the quantum fluctuations is to point out that based on the same initial state, alternatives to the final outcome exist. A single experiment that is not determined is enough to leave room for choice.
That gap is all that is required to allow for any decision making process we can imagine, including free will. The main point here being that we have no scientific way to collect enough data to prove/disprove it. (would appear as a bias in the randomness of quantum events linked to specific decisions, which we cannot measure yet)
I agree it is absurd, I agree it is a bypass of the laws of the universe by something undefined which would have that "will". Point is, there is no scientific way to rule it out other than Ockham's razor.
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote: is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
Your decision to move is caused by electrical signals between synapses in your brain, these electrical signals are caused by biochemical reactions, these biochemical reactions are caused by the motion of particles, the motion of these particles are dictated by the laws of physics.
At no point in the chain of actions is your will exerted.
Every action in this chain has a prior cause, and if we trace this back, we end up at the motion of particles, of which you have no conscious control over.
If what you say is true, then people would not have any control over a single thing they did in life ever. Except people do have choices in life. They are faced with millions of choices and these choices are subject to reason. Reasonably, your "decision to move" is your will, you have it right at the front of this chain of command. How do you describe a contradictory post and all together moot your own point? The mind is a complex feature that noone knows enough about to adiquitely describe a scenerio such as ones life being pre-determined. People have been debating this forever and both sides agree that there are some form of indeterminism is true! According to logic, then if experts in the area all agree that indeterminism exists how in the hell can you turn around and say it doesn't? Whereas, determinism has little to no factual backing and tons of theories floating with open ends left unproven.
But do you really have a choice to move or not? If you did have a choice, that would imply that you can, independent of the world, choose either to receive electrical impulse in the synapses of your brain that constitutes the intention to move or to receive a different electrical impulse which constitutes the intention to not move. Therefore, you imply that the motion of the elementary particles that makes up your thought are chosen by a human brain, as opposed to being dictated by the laws of physics acting on this system of particles from a prior state. This is absurd and contradicts our current understanding of physics.
Sam Harris has another point of view on the issue of humans feeling like they make choices, in the article I linked in the OP. Perhaps his exposition is more relatable:
In the early morning of July 23, 2007, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, two career criminals, arrived at the home of Dr. William and Jennifer Petit in Cheshire, a quiet town in central Connecticut. They found Dr. Petit asleep on a sofa in the sunroom. According to his taped confession, Komisarjevsky stood over the sleeping man for some minutes, hesitating, before striking him in the head with a baseball bat. He claimed that his victim’s screams then triggered something within him, and he bludgeoned Petit with all his strength until he fell silent.
The two then bound Petit’s hands and feet and went upstairs to search the rest of the house. They discovered Jennifer Petit and her daughters—Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11—still asleep. They woke all three and immediately tied them to their beds.
At 7:00 a.m., Hayes went to a gas station and bought four gallons of gasoline. At 9:30, he drove Jennifer Petit to her bank to withdraw $15,000 in cash. The conversation between Jennifer and the bank teller suggests that she was unaware of her husband’s injuries and believed that her captors would release her family unharmed.
While Hayes and the girls’ mother were away, Komisarjevsky amused himself by taking naked photos of Michaela with his cell phone and masturbating on her. When Hayes returned with Jennifer, the two men divided up the money and briefly considered what they should do. They decided that Hayes should take Jennifer into the living room and rape her—which he did. He then strangled her, to the apparent surprise of his partner.
At this point, the two men noticed that William Petit had slipped his bonds and escaped. They began to panic. They quickly doused the house with gasoline and set it on fire. When asked by the police why he hadn’t untied the two girls from their beds before lighting the blaze, Komisarjevsky said, “It just didn’t cross my mind.” The girls died of smoke inhalation. William Petit was the only survivor of the attack.
Upon hearing about crimes of this kind, most of us naturally feel that men like Hayes and Komisarjevsky should be held morally responsible for their actions. Had we been close to the Petit family, many of us would feel entirely justified in killing these monsters with our own hands. Do we care that Hayes has since shown signs of remorse and has attempted suicide? Not really. What about the fact that Komisarjevsky was repeatedly raped as a child? According to his journals, for as long as he can remember, he has known that he was “different” from other people, psychologically damaged, and capable of great coldness. He also claims to have been stunned by his own behavior in the Petit home: He was a career burglar, not a murderer, and he had not consciously intended to kill anyone. Such details might begin to give us pause.
Whether criminals like Hayes and Komisarjevsky can be trusted to honestly report their feelings and intentions is not the point: Whatever their conscious motives, these men cannot know why they are as they are. Nor can we account for why we are not like them. As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath. If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23, 2007—that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state—I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this. The role of luck, therefore, appears decisive.
also, if there's something like determinism, we can never predict the future - simply thanks to heisenberg and his uncertainity principle, saying that we can never messure two states of a particle infinitly exact. for example spin and position. therefor, we don't know where a particle will more, since we'll never be able to messure it, its as close to real chance as it'll ever get. and thats not something because our ways and instruments are flawed, its an actual physical law.
therefor, probably indeterminism is right, but that by far doesn't mean that our brain has control over single particles and then is even able to force them to act against their nature. let alone the energy that'd be needed to manage that would be incredibly high, I don't really wanna know how much we'd have to eat in order to manage that.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The problem with the bolded statement is that it's taking an all or none stance, when in fact there is much grey area to cover. Let's take a look at the probabilty within the randomness of quantum mechanics. Let's make a simplistic example to make it as clear is possible. Let's say that within 3 events or "actions", 2 of them are within the realm of free will, while the 3rd falls into the random nature of quantum mechanics. The key here is that the 3 actions can be independent of each other.
As much as people would like to beleive that every single action is interconnected with each other, they don't have to be.
I've never heard of such an idea in mainstream physics. Did you just make that up? Are you suggesting that somehow, it's possible for a fundamentally random event to be 1/3 random, and 2/3 chosen by a human mind. As I typed that out, I have no idea what the previous sentence even means. I don't suppose any sense can me made of your idea.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists.
I do not see why anyone would try to demonstrate that free will exists, that in itself would be absurd. The use of the quantum fluctuations is to point out that based on the same initial state, alternatives to the final outcome exist. A single experiment that is not determined is enough to leave room for choice.
That gap is all that is required to allow for any decision making process we can imagine, including free will. The main point here being that we have no scientific way to collect enough data to prove/disprove it. (would appear as a bias in the randomness of quantum events linked to specific decisions, which we cannot measure yet)
I agree it is absurd, I agree it is a bypass of the laws of the universe by something undefined which would have that "will". Point is, there is no scientific way to rule it out other than Ockham's razor.
There is no gap. The gap is already filled by fundamental randomness. If humans can fill that gap with their will, then it is no longer fundamentally random, contradicting quantum mechanics, which brings be back to the point in the OP: the existence of free will is inconsistent with what we currently know about the universe.
It's pretty much a fact that the universe is random. Quantum mechanics says so, and quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history. The universe is random, but that doesn't imply free will exists.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
... I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
I appreciate the simplistic way that you've approached this topic, but unfortunately things are not this cut and dry. I am certainly not qualified to be discussing quantum mechanics and matters of the such, but what I can tell you and what others will tell you is that there are still gaping holes that need to be reconciled before we can start drawing vast conclusions like you have here. Keep in mind that it is the theory of quantum mechanics, not a law. Good discussion though.
A law is not something that is believed to be more true than a theory.
A theory is a general framework that explains a particular set of phenomena. A law is simply a mathematical equation that describes some aspect of that phenomena, i.e. a law is a (small) part of a theory. Laws, like theories, can be correct, merely approximations, or completely wrong.
Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory in the history of science.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
... I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
I appreciate the simplistic way that you've approached this topic, but unfortunately things are not this cut and dry. I am certainly not qualified to be discussing quantum mechanics and matters of the such, but what I can tell you and what others will tell you is that there are still gaping holes that need to be reconciled before we can start drawing vast conclusions like you have here. Keep in mind that it is the theory of quantum mechanics, not a law. Good discussion though.
A law is not something that is believed to be more true than a theory.
A theory is a general framework that explains a particular set of phenomena. A law is simply a mathematical equation that describes some aspect of that phenomena, i.e. a law is a (small) part of a theory. Laws, like theories, can be correct, merely approximations, or completely wrong.
Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory in the history of science.
Forgive me if i am wrong about this but aren't there actually over 10 more or less solid theories about quantum mechanics all relying on basically the same observation that both, place and speed of a partical can never be known which is merely the only law of quantum mechanics so far? I've heard that the empiristic evidence of QM is sort of overwhelming but at the same time a huge amount of QM's principles are yet to be discovered and for the time being just subject of speculation?
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
It falls back on the fact that as of now, science is not holistic and it really isn't an issue that different fields of physics have different understanding of what he theory of quantum mechanics actually means.
The fact of the matter is, even the people at the forefront of physics have not ruled out freewill due to their findings so i dont see how the OP can claim that free will definately does not exist, when the experts on the subject he claims proves it does not exist, say they cant prove that...
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
Yes I know, you said that to me. That's an inadequate response if you're going to continue to insist that it's irrational that one assert free will exists as I've just very clearly explained how it rationally can.
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history.
Link? I had heard GPS has made relativity the most tested theory of all time. Is that what you meant?
P.S. I liked this thread more when it was about free will, before the OP got back and turned it into an attack on religion.
Well that is sort of implicated when you start talking about harris. You start with a discussion about free will, you state that there is none, then you go raging about religion to finally find yourself determined to first oversimplify and second judge everything you dont want to understand. It's determination man, free will would induce morality and who would want to be held responsible for such misanthropic pseudo-science...
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
Yes I know, you said that to me. That's an inadequate response if you're going to continue to insist that it's irrational that one assert free will exists as I've just very clearly explained how it rationally can.
I'm saying "free will A" doesn't exist.
You're saying "free will B" exists. I agree that "free will B" exist, as does probably everyone on the planet. But "free will A" still doesn't exist.
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history.
Link? I had heard GPS has made relativity the most tested theory of all time. Is that what you meant?
P.S. I liked this thread more when it was about free will, before the OP got back and turned it into an attack on religion.
Well that is sort of implicated when you start talking about harris. You start with a discussion about free will, you state that there is none, then you go raging about religion to finally find yourself determined to first oversimplify and second judge everything you dont want to understand. It's determination man, free will would induce morality and who would want to be held responsible for such misanthropic pseudo-science...
I've read Harris' arguments on free will. He doesn't usually invoke religion. I do.
If you actually have an argument to make against my points, then make it.
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists.
I do not see why anyone would try to demonstrate that free will exists, that in itself would be absurd. The use of the quantum fluctuations is to point out that based on the same initial state, alternatives to the final outcome exist. A single experiment that is not determined is enough to leave room for choice.
That gap is all that is required to allow for any decision making process we can imagine
There is no gap. The gap is already filled by fundamental randomness. If humans can fill that gap with their will, then it is no longer fundamentally random, contradicting quantum mechanics, which brings be back to the point in the OP: the existence of free will is inconsistent with what we currently know about the universe.
It's pretty much a fact that the universe is random.
Theory does not have a gap, because it fills in indetermination with randomness. Theory is accepted because this randomness is largely verified through experiment. My point is that such randomness cannot be proved/disproved as far as human decision is concerned. The fact that universe is random is "pretty much" a fact.
The scientific argument here is to state: everything we have been able to test so far is in agreement with theory, from stars to particules; there is nothing we have ever found that could go against this theory. If free will existed as a mean to select the outcome of a quantum event, it would introduce a bias in the global randomness, which is a measurable effect.
Fact is: we cannot measure something like "decision randomness" to identify if this bias exists, because there is no reason any quantum state change could exist to be identified as a "decision trigger" and no way to select it for measurement if it did.
Our model of the universe requires randomness, yes. Through our model, we predict any event we cannot measure behaves randomly. Until measurement can be made, even such a weird free will is a matter of belief in the model or in the exception. (as long as I don't put on the light, I cannot know there isn't a monster under my bed. In fact, it makes delicious chocolate cookies. Not too sure where he gets the chocolate though)
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
The sheer fact that we have not reached a grand unified theory shows that our science is not perfect, therefor inconsitency is expected at this stage. And so far our science shows that not all things that apply to the small scale of things works on the macro scale. So its altogether possible, not suggesting probable or more consitent or anything, that free will exists. You can not prove it does not exist, and so can not state that it does not. But even if it does not exist we cannot base our actions on that assumption anyway. To quote Stephen Hawking:
' I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.'
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
The sheer fact that we have not reached a grand unified theory shows that our science is not perfect, therefor inconsitency is expected at this stage. And so far our science shows that not all things that apply to the small scale of things works on the macro scale. So its altogether possible, not suggesting probable or more consitent or anything, that free will exists. You can not prove it does not exist, and so can not state that it does not. But even if it does not exist we cannot base our actions on that assumption anyway. To quote Stephen Hawking:
' I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.'
I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe.
Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.
You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies
[QUOTE]On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
QUOTE]
I'm sorry? I'm making things up? Here is your own original post, where you clearly make an extrapolation based on the inconsitency of free will with our current understanding to state that free will does not exist.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
I'm sorry? I'm making things up? Here is your own original post, where you clearly make an extrapolation based on the inconsitency of free will with our current understanding to state that free will does not exist.
Here's what I wrote:
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
Perhaps the language was a bit strong, but the underlined part clearly predicates the conclusion that free will does not exist based on our current understanding of the universe. And my later posts clearly show that this is my position.
If in the next decade we find and verify new theories about the universe which are not in conflict with free will, then I'll probably change my mind assuming that we also don't find evidence against free will.
On March 06 2012 23:12 paralleluniverse wrote: You're saying "free will B" exists. I agree that "free will B" exist, as does probably everyone on the planet. But "free will A" still doesn't exist.
Congratulation on defeating the strawman you created???
Starting with the assumption that hard determinism is true doesn't lend itself to much further discussion. That is why no one did that and immediately jumped to more interesting topics like whether there are alternatives to hard determinism. And now that everyone (even you) seems to agree upon compatiblism, why not discuss whether weak free will still kills god, or maybe whether it still fairly implies moral/legal/social responsibility?
On March 06 2012 23:12 paralleluniverse wrote: You're saying "free will B" exists. I agree that "free will B" exist, as does probably everyone on the planet. But "free will A" still doesn't exist.
Congratulation on defeating the strawman you created???
Starting with the assumption that hard determinism is true doesn't lend itself to much further discussion. That is why no one did that and immediately jumped to more interesting topics like whether there are alternatives to hard determinism. And now that everyone (even you) seems to agree upon compatiblism, why not discuss whether weak free will still kills god, or maybe whether it still fairly implies moral/legal/social responsibility?
The definition of free will I used in the OP is not arbitrary. It's the one which is necessary for religionists to explain away the cause of evil in the world, since that is one of the main "applications" of the free will doctrine, and since it was the subject of the post.
But I'm happy to discuss other types of free will. However, I suspect we'll find nothing but complete agreement.
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history.
Link? I had heard GPS has made relativity the most tested theory of all time. Is that what you meant?
P.S. I liked this thread more when it was about free will, before the OP got back and turned it into an attack on religion.
Well that is sort of implicated when you start talking about harris. You start with a discussion about free will, you state that there is none, then you go raging about religion to finally find yourself determined to first oversimplify and second judge everything you dont want to understand. It's determination man, free will would induce morality and who would want to be held responsible for such misanthropic pseudo-science...
I've read Harris' arguments on free will. He doesn't usually invoke religion. I do.
If you actually have an argument to make against my points, then make it.
I didn't say that harris follows that train of thought, actually i wouldnt know. I said it goes along with harris induced discussions. And there are two reasons for that: Harris himself is quite against religion at all, even modest ones, putting them all in the same container which sort of pours out between the lines and attracts dogmatic atheists. Second a discussion against free will, only relying on your own scientific implications must lead to a controversity about religion, because thats exactly what you are trying to attack and to defend, a beleifsystem that understands itself as reasonable. But you can only beleive that you know and you can know that you beleive. I suggest both to you.
No religion is reasonable - there is no observable evidence for it, it makes no testable predictions. Any sane and educated person should only make predictions/opinions based on statistically significant evidence.
There is no such thing as a dogmatic atheist - by definition an atheist is someone who rejects belief. An atheist confronted with actual proof of the existence of god would not continue to deny his existence. A person of religious faith presented with a complete lack of evidence for the existence of God will continue to believe in his existence regardless.
On March 06 2012 23:53 paralleluniverse wrote: The definition of free will I used in the OP is not arbitrary. It's the one which is necessary for religionists to explain away the cause of evil in the world, since that is one of the main "applications" of the free will doctrine, and since it was the subject of the post.
The main issue with getting into that is such a "religionist" will not have to care about wether free will granted by his god negates your vision of the mechanics behind Its creation. Yes, it may be against your theories, so ? The fact that you cannot make it fit anywhere will probably even become an argument for it rather than against it
Another vision: Each time a choice has to be made by any soul, God stops Its universe in an eternity outside of time as we know it to let the single soul ponder and select its course of action. Then God creates the universe anew with the choice made and conforming to the laws as we know it. (not sure where I get the eternity of the choice from, but the perpetual creation is a classic)
On March 07 2012 00:11 RoberP wrote: No religion is reasonable - there is no observable evidence for it, it makes no testable predictions. Any sane and educated person should only make predictions/opinions based on statistically significant evidence.
There is no such thing as a dogmatic atheist - by definition an atheist is someone who rejects belief. An atheist confronted with actual proof of the existence of god would not continue to deny his existence. A person of religious faith presented with a complete lack of evidence for the existence of God will continue to believe in his existence regardless.
An atheist is not someone who rejects beleifs. He denies the existence of god and the proof of god would proove him wrong. To say that you cant know anything about gods is agnostic, to deny any truth that isnt statistically evident is basically just dumb and doesnt even have a seperate name as far as i know, but correct me if i am wrong. I would relate to Churchill (Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself) and Heisenberg (you cant observe something without disturbing it) at this point.
So for the sane and educated persons, its actually pretty common knowledge that you cant neither prove nor disprove god and therefore an atheist is beleifrelated in the same way as a christian is. So yeah there are a lot of dogmatic atheists out there, ask for links if you want.
No religion is reasonable - there is no observable evidence for it, it makes no testable predictions.
Religions aren't scientific. (outside the fantastical examples in sci-fi) There is no evidence for god, but there is evidence for religion all over the place. (not that it is correct, just that it exists) But god isn't a requirement for religion. In fact, one could make a non-theistic religion to offer a personal philosophy to the atheists that have trouble coming up with one of their own. It is one thing to be an atheist who doesn't believe in any gods, and quite another to be an atheist who actively hates all world religions.
These are my thoughts about the matter. I choose to set religion aside,because even if religion is true it doesn't really change the outcome.
I believe there is freewill in the sense that I can choose If I want to do action A or B and I do so consciously, however my actions are limited to the rules of our world.You can think of it as living in a virtual world, you can do whatever you want, but you are binded by the rules of the world.
However everything is controlled by its surrounding and those rules, so looking it from another angle, can we really say that it is you(Your consciousness) that made that decision? What defines consciousness? Is it the particles working together based on a set of rules? Are you controlling them or are they controlling you? Is an AI machine considered conscious,if it can make decisions based on a set of rules? Aren't we doing the same? Would freewill be "true" if it was possible to break or change those rules? Even the thought of changing or making the rules,would be determined by other rules.
The world is defined and controlled by a set of rules, but what defines those rules?Another set of rules? What about those and so on...Why water is made up of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms; why those atoms are "designed" to interact this way? etc... When does this cycle of rules/laws control ends?
As you can see, one question leads to another in an endless cycle and everything comes down to the questions, why anything exists and why it is the way it is.
In the end every word's meaning comes to each individual's interpretation.
before you answer the question if there is a free will you have to answer the question if reality is a reflection of your mind or if there exists a reality independently of the one you perceive
On March 07 2012 00:38 TheSun wrote: An atheist is not someone who rejects beleifs. He denies the existence of god and the proof of god would proove him wrong. To say that you cant know anything about gods is agnostic, to deny any truth that isnt statistically evident is basically just dumb and doesnt even have a seperate name as far as i know, but correct me if i am wrong. I would relate to Churchill (Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself) and Heisenberg (you cant observe something without disturbing it) at this point.
So for the sane and educated persons, its actually pretty common knowledge that you cant neither prove nor disprove god and therefore an atheist is beleifrelated in the same way as a christian is. So yeah there are a lot of dogmatic atheists out there, ask for links if you want.
Definition of atheism courtesy of wikipedia. "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." So that's your first point dealt with. As for the rest, if only more decisions in the world were made based on statistics. Please don't quote Heisenberg out of context - and as for Churchill, he is renowned for his witticisms rather that accurate observations on reality. Please wikipedia Russel's Teapot for a refutation of your last point, though I'm sure it's already been addressed in this thread about 20 times.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
The main point I made about the nonexistence of free will is that it is in contradiction with what we currently know about the universe.
Even if our laws are wrong, it doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by some laws. The question is not whether the universe is governed by the laws we understand, but whether it's governed by any laws at all. If they are, then free will is not possible, because it would imply the human brain can make choices independent of what those laws dictate should happen.
If you then invent some wonky explanation about there being a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that instead of defining free will based on some abstract conception of metaphysical understanding you just define it as being capable of internally moving oneself without external hindrance from another. I can just quote some from the wikipedia page in case you didn't actually read it when I linked it because these few points pretty much sum it up.
*Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".
*The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g., "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
*Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have. Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. He is saying he does not know what the determined future will be.
Is there anything you disagree with in this aside from the actual definition of free will being used? If not, then the entire argument is really just one over semantics and anyone who takes this position is going to be completely rational in maintaining that free will and determinism can coexist (with or without religion; again that is entirely irrelevant to the argument) until you can provide an argument other than "I dislike your definition, that's cheating!"
Yes I know, you said that to me. That's an inadequate response if you're going to continue to insist that it's irrational that one assert free will exists as I've just very clearly explained how it rationally can.
I'm saying "free will A" doesn't exist.
You're saying "free will B" exists. I agree that "free will B" exist, as does probably everyone on the planet. But "free will A" still doesn't exist.
That's a much fairer way to word it than "free will doesn't exist, what you're talking about isn't really free will it's just semantics".
Using form B saves you from ethical problems that arise if you say "free will doesn't exist". Judicial systems operate under the assumption that it does exist, even if it's only in form B, and they work entirely independent of whether or not form A exists or not because B is enough to convey that people are still to be held accountable for their actions.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Sorry bud but you have yet to learn all the laws of physics that govern this exisitence. You do not know it all. I cant find anyone in this world who knows it all. It is silly you can come to these conclusions when you don't have all the information. It is funny because anyone who studies phyiscs or nueroscience will be the first to tell you we are just beginning to sratch the surface on all the information we don't know. You do not know enough to formulate a solid argmuement. You, like the rest of us, are simply formulating your own thoughts and opinions based on your interpretation of the incomplete data that you decided to investigate. Smarter men then you and Mr. Sam Harris have argued contrary to your current arguement. And no I am not a religious zealot and yes I am familiar with sam Harris.
On March 07 2012 00:38 TheSun wrote: An atheist is not someone who rejects beleifs. He denies the existence of god and the proof of god would proove him wrong. To say that you cant know anything about gods is agnostic, to deny any truth that isnt statistically evident is basically just dumb and doesnt even have a seperate name as far as i know, but correct me if i am wrong. I would relate to Churchill (Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself) and Heisenberg (you cant observe something without disturbing it) at this point.
So for the sane and educated persons, its actually pretty common knowledge that you cant neither prove nor disprove god and therefore an atheist is beleifrelated in the same way as a christian is. So yeah there are a lot of dogmatic atheists out there, ask for links if you want.
Definition of atheism courtesy of wikipedia. "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." So that's your first point dealt with. As for the rest, if only more decisions in the world were made based on statistics. Please don't quote Heisenberg out of context - and as for Churchill, he is renowned for his witticisms rather that accurate observations on reality. Please wikipedia Russel's Teapot for a refutation of your last point, though I'm sure it's already been addressed in this thread about 20 times.
Congratulations on using Wikipedia to define your thoughts and ideals, really speaks about your character.
But you asserted his point. Atheism is not the hatred or rejection of religion, is the rejection of God or gods. If you think religion is stupid, it isn't because you're a hardcore atheist, it's because you're bigoted and unaccepting.
anyone think it is ironic that science claims to know how the universe and time works...and yet the weatherman cannot accurately predict what the weather will do tomorrow? To people who don't believe in free will: do you believe that a murderer is responsible for his own actions?
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
First of all your opinion assumes a premise which may or may not be true. You base your entire argument on the laws of physics. From a philosophical standpoint, you have to address the issue of the mind-body argument, which you completely ignore in the OP.
If mind and body are one and the same, then the laws of physics apply and your premise can follow.
If mind and body are not one and the same, then your entire argument is invalidated because the mind does not have to follow the laws of physics.
Also, I take the stance of Rene Descartes on this issue, which is they are two distinct things that interact with each other.
On March 07 2012 03:33 pugowar wrote: anyone think it is ironic that science claims to know how the universe and time works...and yet the weatherman cannot accurately predict what the weather will do tomorrow?
Anyone find it baffling that some people can't distinguish the difference between understanding a concept and calculating the behavior of trillions of subatomic particles?
To people who don't believe in free will: do you believe that a murderer is responsible for his own actions?
"Responsibility" is a human invention. If we hold someone responsible, then they are considered responsible. If we don't hold someone responsible, then they aren't considered responsible.
If you are asking me about some metaphysical/objective/voodoo standard of "responsibility," then I would say such a thing does not exist.
i chose to write this, me not someone else what im writing here is a direct result of me deciding to write it and my body moving in order for it to be written nothing is forcing or influecing my decision on what to write i choose what gets written out of my own free will
another thing i dont get is why people say things like prophecys remove free will thats also pretty foolish, people say that "oh if the end result is pre-ordained then i have no free will" but thats wrong its still your free will that caused it to happen jsut becuase you know whats going to happen before you make the choice doesnt remove the choice, you jsut dont realise that you already freely chose the choice that caused the event to happen and didnt realise it
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
First of all your opinion assumes a premise which may or may not be true. You base your entire argument on the laws of physics. From a philosophical standpoint, you have to address the issue of the mind-body argument, which you completely ignore in the OP.
If mind and body are one and the same, then the laws of physics apply and your premise can follow.
If mind and body are not one and the same, then your entire argument is invalidated because the mind does not have to follow the laws of physics.
Also, I take the stance of Rene Descartes on this issue, which is they are two distinct things that interact with each other.
He's emphasized several times that he base his opinion on "what we know about the universe" and at least according to him that would (most likely) be that mind and body are the same. That's my take on his stance anyway.
On March 07 2012 03:57 Forikorder wrote: i dont get why people say free will doesnt exist
i chose to write this, me not someone else what im writing here is a direct result of me deciding to write it and my body moving in order for it to be written nothing is forcing or influecing my decision on what to write i choose what gets written out of my own free will
another thing i dont get is why people say things like prophecys remove free will thats also pretty foolish, people say that "oh if the end result is pre-ordained then i have no free will" but thats wrong its still your free will that caused it to happen jsut becuase you know whats going to happen before you make the choice doesnt remove the choice, you jsut dont realise that you already freely chose the choice that caused the event to happen and didnt realise it
Maybe if you read even part of the last 27 pages then you would get why people say that. It is true that people make "choices," but the point is that people don't have control of their choices. Our ignorance of the causes of a choice cause us to assume that the choice was uncaused.
Here's some of my own points, #5 is the important one.
On March 06 2012 10:18 liberal wrote: I find myself repeating the same ideas over and over... So I'm gonna consolidate them here for future reference.
1) Ignorance of the causes is not evidence against causality.
2) Arbitrary quantum behavior cannot explain free will, because free will is not considered arbitrary.
3) It DOES matter whether you think people have free will or not. It will influence your judgement towards other people, and the decisions we as a society make, particularly regarding how to deal with criminals. Retribution does not make sense in the face of determinism.
4) Fancy philosophical arguments about the nature of truth do not negate the fact that events in the universe are either caused or uncaused.
5) The strongest argument against free will is that there is no conceptually possible alternative to an event being either caused and/or uncaused. Free will is considered neither caused nor uncaused, and so is necessarily irrational. This is an argument that not one person has been able to refute.
On March 06 2012 15:36 shinyA wrote: God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it.
What does this even mean? This is one of those vague statements that theists throw out, but it doesn't really make much sense. Its typically used to justify bad arguments such as the first cause argument: "The universe has a first cause which was god, but god doesn't need a cause because he exists outside of time". In other words, an illogical statement is used to justify an invalid argument. If god exists and interacts in our universe, say by parting the red sea (which DOES exist in space/time), then he exists in space/time. If he does not exist in space/time of our universe, then he cannot do things such as raise people from the dead. That would involve affecting OUR molecular structure, which DOES exist in space/time. If god is a completely spiritual being with no x,y,z,t coordinate, then he has no impact on our existence whatsoever. If god can interact with us, he is bound by time. Theists don't get to make up rules because the idea of god contradicts basic scientific knowledge. There is nothing in the bible that suggests god is not a temporal being: Creating the universe in 7 days, regretting drowning everyone in the flood after the fact, regretting giving the israelites a king after the fact, etc.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
There are a couple of problems with that statement...
- Do theists have free will in heaven? All evil will be gone right? Won't they just be mindless automatons? - This also does not account for natural disasters. Humans can still choose right from wrong, but can do so in a world where earthquakes aren't slaughtering millions of people for free. - Finally, free will is just the ability to make choices. Saying that we need suffering for free will makes no sense. Let's say we lived in a magical garden where everything was happy. I could still make choices. I could choose to take a walk along a stream, or to pick flowers.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
Yeah I didn't say no apologist had no answer, I said their answers were poor, just like yours. How is not preventing evil not malevolent? If a warlord is raping and plundering innocent people in africa, and with the snap of my finger, I could render him impotent, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Not doing so makes me evil. Every decent human being out there tries to help out those who are suffering, we just lack the power to make a difference. Similarly, putting adam and eve in the garden of eden with a fast talking snake, KNOWING what would happen, punishing them for something that was inevitable, and then punishing their descendants with eternal hellfire is negligent and malevolent. You cannot create a flawed creation and then throw a hissy fit after the fact, that is childish.
Just because morality is subjective and nuanced shades of grey does not mean there is no evil. Evil only exists in the context of consciousness. A plant is not good or evil. A human, who has evolved empathy and can understand suffering, defines his own system of ethics, but there is a lot of overlap. The gist of it is, anything that causes suffering to others is evil. Anything that reduces suffering is good. The nuanced shades of grey comes in because the world is a complex place. However, saying that the god of the bible is let off the hook because ethics is far more complex than a simple and naive system of absolute morality is a cop out.
On March 07 2012 03:57 Forikorder wrote: i dont get why people say free will doesnt exist
i chose to write this, me not someone else what im writing here is a direct result of me deciding to write it and my body moving in order for it to be written nothing is forcing or influecing my decision on what to write i choose what gets written out of my own free will
another thing i dont get is why people say things like prophecys remove free will thats also pretty foolish, people say that "oh if the end result is pre-ordained then i have no free will" but thats wrong its still your free will that caused it to happen jsut becuase you know whats going to happen before you make the choice doesnt remove the choice, you jsut dont realise that you already freely chose the choice that caused the event to happen and didnt realise it
If you were without any senses, no touch, no sight, no smell and so on, would you still be writing this? Everything that happens around you, what happens inside your body, everything that you have ever experienced is influencing you up to the very point where you sit in front of your computer to write this. I'm not saying I'm for or against the idea of free will but you can't say that nothing is influencing you. No one is ever seperated to the world around you or what's happening to your body, be it something extreemly miniscule.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
I'm sorry? I'm making things up? Here is your own original post, where you clearly make an extrapolation based on the inconsitency of free will with our current understanding to state that free will does not exist.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
Perhaps the language was a bit strong, but the underlined part clearly predicates the conclusion that free will does not exist based on our current understanding of the universe. And my later posts clearly show that this is my position.
If in the next decade we find and verify new theories about the universe which are not in conflict with free will, then I'll probably change my mind assuming that we also don't find evidence against free will.
Ok, how do you know that murder is "wrong". How do you know that murder is bad or evil. Explain how you know what happens after someone dies that you can the give a determination that it is bad or unsavory or ultimately people shouldn't want it to happen. Perceiving something as bad isn't the same as it actually being bad.
Good and evil can only exist if there is an ultimate standard that exists outside people. You can't claim murder is wrong on based on religious teachings, and then discount the religious teachings that say god isn't responsible for murders but the person who commits them. Just so you can understand why I'm asking that you prove in the absence of god that murder is wrong, since that is the basic argument you are making against a "good" god existing when evil also exists and is preventable.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
First of all your opinion assumes a premise which may or may not be true. You base your entire argument on the laws of physics. From a philosophical standpoint, you have to address the issue of the mind-body argument, which you completely ignore in the OP.
If mind and body are one and the same, then the laws of physics apply and your premise can follow.
If mind and body are not one and the same, then your entire argument is invalidated because the mind does not have to follow the laws of physics.
Also, I take the stance of Rene Descartes on this issue, which is they are two distinct things that interact with each other.
He's emphasized several times that he base his opinion on "what we know about the universe" and at least according to him that would (most likely) be that mind and body are the same. That's my take on his stance anyway.
However, we are still just beginning to understand how the brain works. Furthermore, the OP makes a blatant jab at all religions, which is a veiled attempt at inciting at best, which is baiting people. This baiting is leading to people responding out of emotion.
Alright there were a lot of posts discussing religion most of them were addressed. Here's one...
On March 07 2012 00:38 TheSun wrote: So for the sane and educated persons, its actually pretty common knowledge that you cant neither prove nor disprove god and therefore an atheist is beleifrelated in the same way as a christian is. So yeah there are a lot of dogmatic atheists out there, ask for links if you want.
You can neither prove nor disprove santa claus. or odin. or zeus. or any fictional being. it does not mean that they are both equally likely. atheists *lack* a belief in god because of lack of evidence, just like you *lack* a belief in santa for the exact same reason. we do not *deny* the god's existence, that is semantically different. it is not possible to disprove anything. but that doesn't mean we should go around believing everything. you don't either.
an atheist would believe in jesus even if he returned from heaven and walked around on water. but he hasn't. there is no evidence jesus was a divine god. a believer on the other hand, would never ever ever ever entertain the possibility that they could be wrong. any contradicting evidence to their belief system is waved aside and ignored. and that is dogma.
On March 07 2012 04:10 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Good and evil can only exist if there is an ultimate standard that exists outside people. You can't claim murder is wrong on based on religious teachings, and then discount the religious teachings that say god isn't responsible for murders but the person who commits them. Just so you can understand why I'm asking that you prove in the absence of god that murder is wrong, since that is the basic argument you are making against a "good" god existing when evil also exists and is preventable.
I addressed this in a previous post, but to add to this:
no christian can possibly argue for absolute morality, because the god of the bible ordered and committed genocide multiple times. not to mention slavery, misogyny, racism, stoning people to death for breaking the sabbath, etc... every time it is brought up, theists simply argue: "gods ways are above our own, who are you to judge him"
if morality is absolute, i absolutely can judge the actions of bible god as evil. the fact that theists have to defend genocide kinda pokes holes in their statements.
On March 07 2012 03:33 pugowar wrote: anyone think it is ironic that science claims to know how the universe and time works...and yet the weatherman cannot accurately predict what the weather will do tomorrow?
Anyone find it baffling that some people can't distinguish the difference between understanding a concept and calculating the behavior of trillions of subatomic particles?
Issue is the result computed would not be the weather tomorrow as people expect it, it would be the list of possible weathers with probability of occurence. (which is how an actual meteorology map is made today, although the main factor so far is still the error margins in the initial state and in the model)
Yeah, you can eliminate "unknown force X" with Ockham's razor. My reasons to believe aren't scientific anyway, so I can live with the low probability that free will is real. Believing that I am free allows myself to be consistent with my other beliefs that improve the quality of my life...such as universal moral responsibility and a sense of self. Also without free will, what would I make of my emotions? Would it make sense to take pride in my accomplishments, could I truly say I love somebody?
I think it's people, not religion, that need free will.
I think the basis of this argument is flawed; there is no "law of physics" which necessarily pre-empts our actions. This is the basis of the critics' arguments here.
The "Laws of Physics" affect how the energies (bound into elements etc.) of our universe interact with each other as they progress through what we call "time" -- the discernable (and seemingly continuous) progression of that matter through a one-way sequence. Therefore, seemingly, the end result of those interactions will be predictable, and therefore is predetermined.
With that said, my opinion is that we are made from the elements of this universe into living "machines" -- built from the universe's parts, but seperate from its inherent predictable (random) environment. We are evolved functioning molecules, and we have the perception and real ability to choose how to act based on our circumstances.
Now, you'll say that that constitutes predetermination -- that our environment will always be the same at a certain point.
I would answer by referring to the OP: where he said it did not matter whether the predetermination was "random" or "conscious (?)" [or at least that we cannot tell which]. This to me is an extremely important distinction, as all predeterminists agree that they cannot fathom the outcome of this equation. What evidence do you have, if the determination is random, that we do not have the ability to make a free will decision, within our circumstance? What if we truly CAN will our choices into existence? What if the determination is in fact being made by us?
At the point when a functioning machine decides one choice of action over another, what alarm sounds? What law of physics is BROKEN by the idea that we can focus our electrons to a purpose? I mean you can't attribute my decisions directly to gravity -- although you could say that I have to stay on the ground most of the time.
I mean the more basic elements of the universe are still following the laws of physics and will be unaffected by this "Free will" dilemma. Random quantum physics or whatever. But are the neurons in our brains really subject to relevant randomness equations? And if so, what is it to be alive?
ARE THE CHOICES WE MAKE REALLY DETERMINED BY THE RANDOM-MOVING MOLECULES THAT WE OBSERVE, or more by THE CONSCIOUS ACTIONS OF OUR COMMUNITY ETC? and if the latter, does that not mean that we have been making free will decisions, with implications, for time immemorial?
If you were omnipotent, you could see the outcome and determine the proper way to move the pieces such as to produce that outcome. But as living beings, we are subject to TIME and to ENVIRONMENT (physics). We are bound to those constraints -- so my concept of "free will" is confined to the constraints as well. But WITHIN that environment, and that timeframe, I am free to make decisions independent of the universe. You can call that predeterminism, but its not -- no one is controlling this flow, and no one knows how it ends. We truly make our own path in this universe, each of us subjectively.
I would agree to predeterminism, if it wasn't so apparent to me that I am making my own choices within this environment, (composed of randomly predetermined molecules, lets say) and that the subtle differences in my life as a result of my choices [which don't break the laws of physics by any means] -- those are the "free will" determinations that I am glad to have in my life. I mean time travel has never been proven. We can't say the future exists yet. If it doesn't, then there's no such thing as determinism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Physics make's any particularly bold claims on the mind-body issue.
There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters.
On March 07 2012 05:01 Artisian wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Physics make's any particularly bold claims on the mind-body issue.
There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters.
Yes, there is so little we know about the brain. The fact that people repeat such things, with what appears to me some satisfaction, is very telling. People like ignorance in science as a prop for their beliefs.
Here is what we DO know about the brain. Surgeries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Injuries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Drugs affecting it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Changes in the environment a person grew up in have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Genes have been shown to influence behavior and personality.
The point I am making is that people are their brains. Affecting the brain, affects the mind. This is undeniable.
In the face of this undeniable fact, people start leaping to absurd conclusions. For example, suggesting that the brain influences behavior but does not determine it. What do you think influence means? It means plays a hand in determining it. Once we accept this, then we can reject the notion of "free" will. Obviously it is not free if it is determined to any degree.
What other leaps in logic can we make to deny the inevitable? Quantum mechanics? Unexplained behavior? Jumps into Epistemology to deny logic and reason itself? Feelings?
This is all that has been presented in favor of the notion of free will. We could provide literally thousands of examples in the literature of science which suggested that the state of the brain determines behavior and decisions. What evidence is there to the contrary? Not one shred has been presented here.
Do decisions control the chemicals in your brain? No, of course not. Decisions aren't laws of nature. The chemicals in your brain determine your decisions. Pure and simple.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: *snip* I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
I'd like to interject with the notion of emergent systems. Emergence is a natural phenomenon in which complexity - and even completely new modes of operation - arise out of multiplicity. While our brain is inherently bound by the laws of physics, the way it operates can't really be simplified (at least not yet) to particle physics. This is not to say "free will" somehow defies causality. No, cause and effect are still safe. The cause however may not be as simple as interactions between particles. These interactions happen, of course, but the way our electro-chemical "mainframe" otherwise know as the brain works may be able to resist some action potentials willfully or subconsciously. Action potential is a key element of how neurons fire and the way this potential is inhibited or accelerated is understood at the level of a single neuron and it's synapses, but not so much in the entire interconnected neural network.
In my oppinion we make choices in light of our tendencies, rooted deeply in our genetics, our psychological development and our past experiences. We have some understanding as to how our brain works when we make decisions, but we can't fully understand exactly what goes on in the ol' noggin' during our thought process. However, even if we accept the idea of free will, i'd say that a lot of our decisions aren't as "free" as we'd like to think. Most of the time we act due to stimuli (usually in a manner that is fairly easy to predict if we have a lot of information about the person and how he has acted before in similiar situations) as is very much the case with Starcraft 2 for example.
Now i was about to go on about cartesian dualism and what exactly do we mean when we say "When I make a decision..." but i think that derails the whole subject a bit too far.
On March 07 2012 05:01 Artisian wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Physics make's any particularly bold claims on the mind-body issue.
There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters.
Yes, there is so little we know about the brain. The fact that people repeat such things, with what appears to me some satisfaction, is very telling. People like ignorance in science as a prop for their beliefs.
Here is what we DO know about the brain. Surgeries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Injuries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Drugs affecting it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Changes in the environment a person grew up in have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Genes have been shown to influence behavior and personality.
The point I am making is that people are their brains. Affecting the brain, affects the mind. This is undeniable.
In the face of this undeniable fact, people start leaping to absurd conclusions. For example, suggesting that the brain influences behavior but does not determine it. What do you think influence means? It means plays a hand in determining it. Once we accept this, then we can reject the notion of "free" will. Obviously it is not free if it is determined to any degree.
What other leaps in logic can we make to deny the inevitable? Quantum mechanics? Unexplained behavior? Jumps into Epistemology to deny logic and reason itself? Feelings?
This is all that has been presented in favor of the notion of free will. We could provide literally thousands of examples in the literature of science which suggested that the state of the brain determines behavior and decisions. What evidence is there to the contrary? Not one shred has been presented here.
Do decisions control the chemicals in your brain? No, of course not. Decisions aren't laws of nature. The chemicals in your brain determine your decisions. Pure and simple.
People are not just their brains. Influence means to give input, but input can be rejected or can error. Essentially your argument is that humanity is a really complex computer program, but the thing about really complex computer programs, is that they have tons of errors and glitches. Input 1 will not always give Output 1. Three people with similar genetics, backgrounds, and environments can become 3 completely different people. Why? Because all of these inputs are simply predispositions (tendency to choose one option or set of options). The person may be slightly more likely to choose an option, yet the person may choose otherwise. A person with all of the genetic factors and environmental factors for addiction can become something other than an addict. Why? Free will is the answer to why.
Right, when you try to mechanically explain something like creativity or imagination, you just start failing hard and suddenly the free-willist viewpoint becomes the pure and simple one, while the determinist viewpoint becomes increasingly unreasonable. That's why you shouldn't be so hasty to dismiss the idea.
Then again, defending free will by demanding such explanations...is just as much of a straw man as simplifying our minds to "some mechanical determined stuff"
It seems to me that precise extent of determinism inherent in our perceived choices is really quite aside from the point when it comes to religious claims about evil being a consequence of free will. Whether, indeed, we are only ever capable of a single course of action is an open question, and an interesting avenue for scientific inquiry, but it requires no great insight to observe that there are many courses of action we cannot choose. For example, no matter how strongly I might will it, I cannot go back in time and prevent my annoying neighbor from ever being born. Indeed, the number of courses of action that result in what one might describe as "evil" of which we are capable seems to me to be a very small fraction of all such courses of action that are imaginable.
It begs the question, then, why a benevolent creator would not have chosen a different design--one in which even fewer evil course of action were within our capabilities, or, indeed, none at all. For example, if human biology were designed to be less fragile, our opportunities to harm and kill each other could certainly be reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, without otherwise affecting our ability to exercise free will, to whatever extent it does, as a factual matter, exist. And this is to say nothing of "evils" which are largely unrelated to human decision-making processes. Thus, free will fails to adequately explain evil even if we assume that it exists in the way that apologists would have us imagine that it does, and so, at least for the purposes of that debate, speculation about free will versus determinism strikes me as wholly unnecessary.
On March 07 2012 06:38 Lord_J wrote: It seems to me that precise extent of determinism inherent in our perceived choices is really quite aside from the point when it comes to religious claims about evil being a consequence of free will. Whether, indeed, we are only ever capable of a single course of action is an open question, and an interesting avenue for scientific inquiry, but it requires no great insight to observe that there are many courses of action we cannot choose. For example, no matter how strongly I might will it, I cannot go back in time and prevent my annoying neighbor from ever being born. Indeed, the number of courses of action that result in what one might describe as "evil" of which we are capable seems to me to be a very small fraction of all such courses of action that are imaginable.
It begs the question, then, why a benevolent creator would not have chosen a different design--one in which even fewer evil course of action were within our capabilities, or, indeed, none at all. For example, if human biology were designed to be less fragile, our opportunities to harm and kill each other could certainly be reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, without otherwise affecting our ability to exercise free will, to whatever extent it does, as a factual matter, exist. And this is to say nothing of "evils" which are largely unrelated to human decision-making processes. Thus, free will fails to adequately explain evil even if we assume that it exists in the way that apologists would have us imagine that it does, and so, at least for the purposes of that debate, speculation about free will versus determinism strikes me as wholly unnecessary.
However, your argument about humans being less fragile is simple theorycrafting. If it became harder to kill hurt or harm another human being, then people would simply come up with more damaging things to accomplish this end. There is no point at which people could be made indestructible enough to eliminate the potential to harm or kill. If we are all made out of the same materials, then we can still hurt each other because when two opposing things made of the same material collide, they both suffer damage. However, one also has to consider how practical it would be for people to be made out of other materials. And for the theological argument one also has to address what the notion of being created in the "image of God" means.
On March 07 2012 05:01 Artisian wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Physics make's any particularly bold claims on the mind-body issue.
There's still so little we know about brain states, and even less that we understand, that I don't think free-will can be shown false (or true) through current physics. I'm fairly certain the technically correct decision is to suspend judgement and use whatever belief is most functional until it matters.
Yes, there is so little we know about the brain. The fact that people repeat such things, with what appears to me some satisfaction, is very telling. People like ignorance in science as a prop for their beliefs.
Here is what we DO know about the brain. Surgeries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Injuries to it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Drugs affecting it have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Changes in the environment a person grew up in have been shown to influence behavior and personality. Genes have been shown to influence behavior and personality.
The point I am making is that people are their brains. Affecting the brain, affects the mind. This is undeniable.
In the face of this undeniable fact, people start leaping to absurd conclusions. For example, suggesting that the brain influences behavior but does not determine it. What do you think influence means? It means plays a hand in determining it. Once we accept this, then we can reject the notion of "free" will. Obviously it is not free if it is determined to any degree.
What other leaps in logic can we make to deny the inevitable? Quantum mechanics? Unexplained behavior? Jumps into Epistemology to deny logic and reason itself? Feelings?
This is all that has been presented in favor of the notion of free will. We could provide literally thousands of examples in the literature of science which suggested that the state of the brain determines behavior and decisions. What evidence is there to the contrary? Not one shred has been presented here.
Do decisions control the chemicals in your brain? No, of course not. Decisions aren't laws of nature. The chemicals in your brain determine your decisions. Pure and simple.
People are not just their brains. Influence means to give input, but input can be rejected or can error. Essentially your argument is that humanity is a really complex computer program, but the thing about really complex computer programs, is that they have tons of errors and glitches. Input 1 will not always give Output 1. Three people with similar genetics, backgrounds, and environments can become 3 completely different people. Why? Because all of these inputs are simply predispositions (tendency to choose one option or set of options). The person may be slightly more likely to choose an option, yet the person may choose otherwise. A person with all of the genetic factors and environmental factors for addiction can become something other than an addict. Why? Free will is the answer to why.
if people aren't "just" their brains, what else are they? if an arm has to be amputated, it gets basically thrown into the trashcan, if someone would theoretically be left with his whole body amputated and the brain being kept alive mechanically, and it eventually dies, what do you think would happen? its getting a proper burrial, eventhough its definitively NOT the body.
everything influences the brain and therefor the person (as stated before). if someone, like you said, has all the genetic factors and environmental factors for addiction, he WILL become an addict. if he does not become one, either surrounding (friends, availability of drugs, general perception of drug-abuse in the social surrounding, personal feelings etc) or genetic factors are not given.
as for your first example, yeah, those 3 would develope differently. and they'd be more likely to take one option over the other. in very, very, very few cases, they might take the one thats unlikely, but thats not free will but actual chance (see also: heisenberg). in most cases, they'll take the one that some theoretical person with perception of background and knowledge as well as genetic information would predict. such a person doesn't exist, obviously, and its far too complicated to actually predict something like that, but in theory its possible.
somebody asked before if, seeing that I don't believe in free will, a murderer would be guilty or should be punished, here's my opinion on that: as for guilty, I don't think so. if he should be punished, yes, certainly. you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
On March 07 2012 06:38 Lord_J wrote: It seems to me that precise extent of determinism inherent in our perceived choices is really quite aside from the point when it comes to religious claims about evil being a consequence of free will. Whether, indeed, we are only ever capable of a single course of action is an open question, and an interesting avenue for scientific inquiry, but it requires no great insight to observe that there are many courses of action we cannot choose. For example, no matter how strongly I might will it, I cannot go back in time and prevent my annoying neighbor from ever being born. Indeed, the number of courses of action that result in what one might describe as "evil" of which we are capable seems to me to be a very small fraction of all such courses of action that are imaginable.
It begs the question, then, why a benevolent creator would not have chosen a different design--one in which even fewer evil course of action were within our capabilities, or, indeed, none at all. For example, if human biology were designed to be less fragile, our opportunities to harm and kill each other could certainly be reduced, or perhaps even eliminated, without otherwise affecting our ability to exercise free will, to whatever extent it does, as a factual matter, exist. And this is to say nothing of "evils" which are largely unrelated to human decision-making processes. Thus, free will fails to adequately explain evil even if we assume that it exists in the way that apologists would have us imagine that it does, and so, at least for the purposes of that debate, speculation about free will versus determinism strikes me as wholly unnecessary.
However, your argument about humans being less fragile is simple theorycrafting. If it became harder to kill hurt or harm another human being, then people would simply come up with more damaging things to accomplish this end. There is no point at which people could be made indestructible enough to eliminate the potential to harm or kill. If we are all made out of the same materials, then we can still hurt each other because when two opposing things made of the same material collide, they both suffer damage. However, one also has to consider how practical it would be for people to be made out of other materials. And for the theological argument one also has to address what the notion of being created in the "image of God" means.
I am sorry, but that's an extremely narrow and simplistic view. Even assuming, as you boldly declare, that there is no point at which people could be made indestructible enough to eliminate the potential to harm or kill, it's silly to think that human vulnerability couldn't at least be reduced below what it presently is. Your argument about "materials," besides being just plain wrong (e.g., water does not suffer "damage" when it "collides with" water), is aside from the point, since that is hardly the only way to make human beings more resilient to physical harm. Simply improving the immune system, for instance, and thereby reducing the danger of infection after physical injury could result in a reduction in the evils we inflict on each other (not to mention many other evils that aren't the result of anyone's conscious choice).
Indeed, there are innumerable ways in which we could be better able to avoid, mitigate, or at least recover from whatever harm, if any, does inevitably affect us. And, it bears re-emphasis out, that the idea of making humans less fragile is itself just one example of the innumerable ways in which our ability to carry out evil could be reduced. To suggest that they're all somehow impractical or ultimately unavailing is an awfully flaccid defense for an allegedly omnipotent being. Similarly, if you wish to speculate that God made us fragile out of a desire to create us in his own image, then it seems to me that you don't have a very high opinion of your God. And even if that were the case, it only begs the question whether God's decision to make us in his own image, despite knowing that it would increase the amount of evil in the world, is consistent with claims of his goodness and/or benevolence.
If you really want to insist that human beings and the universe they inhabit are designed to permit the absolute minimum amount of evil consistent with free will, then I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss. Such a conversation would inevitably degenerate into an uninteresting game of whack-a-mole, wherein I keep pointing out counter-examples to your way of thinking and you keep coming up with new ways to rationalize them instead of considering the possibility that you might have been wrong, and I don't intend to spend my time playing that game.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
I would say it is the idea that human behavior is somehow immune to causality, and yet is not arbitrary.
In other words it is nonsensical and cannot even be comprehended or properly defined, because it does not exist anywhere in the known universe. It is a notion which shuts down the brain when we try to comprehend it, because the brain cannot conceive an alternative to either determination or randomness. Instead the mind goes into nonsense land, where superstition, metaphysics, and doublethink reside.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
So I see two possibilities:
You know nothing about science, talking out your ass, and you're just trolling.
OR
You know more about chemistry and physics than I do and perhaps the rest of the known world.
Either way, I'd still like you to explain your point further, since you've just created allegations against religion.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
So I see two possibilities:
You know nothing about science, talking out your ass, and you're just trolling.
OR
You know more about chemistry and physics than I do and perhaps the rest of the known world.
He almost certainly knows more science than you do, seeing how you have not reached this conclusion yourself.
Either way, I'd still like you to explain your point further, since you've just created allegations against religion.
This thread is already 27+ pages long. He has explained his point further already, as have many others, if you go back and read it.
No one actually has 'free will'. You want to float in mid air RIGHT this instant, you reckon you can do it?? You certainly not free to do it on your own 'will'. The extent of your 'free will' to act is determined by your environment (ie: laws of physics n shit as OP as mentioned). Yes you can lift your leg up whenever you want, but you certainly can't teleport to the nearest mcdonalds for a cheeseburger if your hungry.
However, there is a degree of freedom in action. One can choose to be some suicide bomber, one can choose to study harder. Your environment around you gives you certain choices to act upon on your own 'free will', that is all.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
What about Leviticus 11:20-23.
It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
So far I haven't read many good arguments for either side. The free will ones though are definitely way worse, trying to prove with anecdotal evidence or trivial examples as "logic" that free will exists is dumb. Most if not all of them have failed to explain why free will exists, instead justifying their decision making because of free will, which is obviously circular reasoning.
While the anti-free-will arguments have completely swung the other way without providing good examples explaining how it goes against commonly accepted examples of free will at work. Maybe the science is there, how does it relate to us? All I see is some loosely connected examples of quantum physics and neuroscience. Obviously people aren't going to understand that, and rebut with a petty example that would somewhat resemble something you see in a girl blog.
The only good example of non free will I've seen is the split brain example. Where people have had surgery to cure diseases like epilepsy, resulting in a disconnect between the right and left brain. What then occurs is that you have no free will over one side of the body, as if another soul is living inside your body.
However it still behaves cohesively nevertheless, you still feel in control of it because you can walk, work and live out your daily life. Then for some reason every now and then, your some parts of your body will have its own ideas, e.g you want to put on a green shirt, but your hand reaches out and picks the purple one.
There are also cases of outer body experiences where people have lost control of their bodies, but their behaviour is still completely normal and they for about 10 mins or maybe checking out food at a machine, even though the person had no control over his body. What's even more scary is that this happens to a lot of pilots, due to their working environment.
Is it so hard to believe that our brain might have more influence over our decision making than we think?
What is debunked is that even if quantum fluctuations are fundamentally stochastic, i.e., completely random and unpredictable, it still does not imply that free will exists.
I do not see why anyone would try to demonstrate that free will exists, that in itself would be absurd. The use of the quantum fluctuations is to point out that based on the same initial state, alternatives to the final outcome exist. A single experiment that is not determined is enough to leave room for choice.
That gap is all that is required to allow for any decision making process we can imagine, including free will. The main point here being that we have no scientific way to collect enough data to prove/disprove it. (would appear as a bias in the randomness of quantum events linked to specific decisions, which we cannot measure yet)
I agree it is absurd, I agree it is a bypass of the laws of the universe by something undefined which would have that "will". Point is, there is no scientific way to rule it out other than Ockham's razor.
There is no gap. The gap is already filled by fundamental randomness. If humans can fill that gap with their will, then it is no longer fundamentally random, contradicting quantum mechanics, which brings be back to the point in the OP: the existence of free will is inconsistent with what we currently know about the universe.
It's pretty much a fact that the universe is random. Quantum mechanics says so, and quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history. The universe is random, but that doesn't imply free will exists.
I don't think this is true. While it is considered the pinnacle of physics and many of the most famous scientists have striven to work on this all their life, I think it is also one of the most misunderstood sciences just like neuroscience, simply because of its technicality.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
How exactly does the Old Testament give us an idea of God's standards? Every single Christian I know cherry pick from the Old Testament. What kind of standards and morals can God teach when his followers can't even come up with a concensus on which standards to follow?
Some events in the Bible and some figures in the Bible can be proven by archeological evidence and historical writings, but the more fantastical events that happened, like Moses parting the sea, and the Great Flood, are hard to substantiate. To the people of the time, a drought causing a section of a large river to recede or a flash flood wiping out a village could be seen as supernatural in origin. They tell their family in another village, their family passes the story along, mixing the details up or inventing new ones to make their story better received, and in the end, it's written down in the Bible as supposedly historical fact. Look up the tale of King Arthur and his knights.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion." What about the phrase right after it? "...Though not beheld".
As for the prophecies in the Bible, vague words don't mean anything. You're telling us that you believe in soothsayers as well? I would love for you to list the prophecies made in the Bible and give us a word by word translation on how they relate to something that happened after. As for 4000 years of historical "fact" that the Bible seems to espouse, why don't you take a look through the history books by the various historians throughout the ages and compare them to the Bible? If you want to be scientific, you have to be thorough, and above all else you have to be questioning and interpreting every sentence in the Bible, because for every 1 historical "fact" you might find in the Bible, I can pick up the book and give you 10 inconsistencies.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22)
The "circle" that's translated here can also mean an arch, which is what this line is alluding to. The arch of the heavens. + Show Spoiler +
The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.
As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water.
If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
On March 06 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Quantum mechanics says so, and quantum mechanics is the most accurately verified theory in scientific history.
He was extending the success of quantum electrodynamics to all of quantum mechanics. QED gets accuracy of 1 part in 10^10. Measurements can get much higher accuracies, LIGO measures distance to 1 part in 10^21. But I guess they are excluding the theory of interference because it would mute their hyperbole.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
What about Leviticus 11:20-23.
It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
so leviticus 11:21 reads: "Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth."
I read it as saying insects have four legs that are used to crawl (or "go upon") additionally they have 2 other legs used for leaping therefore having six in total. The inconsistency is in your interpretation, not the scriptures itself. When one interpretation does not add up we should consider another explanation that does in order for the entire body to be coherent and hence after many hours of contemplating on the scriptures there should be only one correct way to interpret the scriptures so that it all adds up within itself.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
How exactly does the Old Testament give us an idea of God's standards? Every single Christian I know cherry pick from the Old Testament. What kind of standards and morals can God teach when his followers can't even come up with a concensus on which standards to follow?
Some events in the Bible and some figures in the Bible can be proven by archeological evidence and historical writings, but the more fantastical events that happened, like Moses parting the sea, and the Great Flood, are hard to substantiate. To the people of the time, a drought causing a section of a large river to recede or a flash flood wiping out a village could be seen as supernatural in origin. They tell their family in another village, their family passes the story along, mixing the details up or inventing new ones to make their story better received, and in the end, it's written down in the Bible as supposedly historical fact. Look up the tale of King Arthur and his knights.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion." What about the phrase right after it? "...Though not beheld".
As for the prophecies in the Bible, vague words don't mean anything. You're telling us that you believe in soothsayers as well? I would love for you to list the prophecies made in the Bible and give us a word by word translation on how they relate to something that happened after. As for 4000 years of historical "fact" that the Bible seems to espouse, why don't you take a look through the history books by the various historians throughout the ages and compare them to the Bible? If you want to be scientific, you have to be thorough, and above all else you have to be questioning and interpreting every sentence in the Bible, because for every 1 historical "fact" you might find in the Bible, I can pick up the book and give you 10 inconsistencies.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22)
The "circle" that's translated here can also mean an arch, which is what this line is alluding to. The arch of the heavens. + Show Spoiler +
The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.
As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water.
If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years.
You cant judge God based on what someone who claims to be His follower says.E.g. If i say im an expert at SC2 but cant tell you how to hold off a 4gate as terran, than do i really know how to play SC2? or is it just SC2 that is broken and 4 gates cannot be held off? - this is the cause of much grief when new strategies come out that seem imba, people just like to take the easy road and QQ and say its not possible but someone will come along and show them how to hold it off and all will be forgotten.
I did briefly address this issue before. In saying “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). I do not claim myself to know or act in complete harmony with the bible, heck i masturbated about 10 times in the last two days. I'm just trying to defend it with what i do know.
Yes some bible events can be substantiated and some not. But why would you focus on what we do not know about the bible in an attempt to understand it, its not going to lead anywhere constructive to hypothesize about what happened at the parting of the red sea, just look to somewhere where you can find answers.
As for the Isaiah quote I have a source that says it can be translated as a sphere. So this argument will now deteriorate into my scholar is better than your scholar but ultimately will lead no where.
As for the prophecies i mentioned, i was interested in the ones that had already come true not ones made willy-nilly by any old "sooth sayer" and hence gave me evident demonstration of things hoped for though not yet beheld. As in by fulfilling prophecies in the past He has provided evident demonstration that the promises He made regarding the future will be beheld.
And as for a deeper description of the prophecies i mentioned well that is beyond the scope of this thread and my knowledge to be honest, i have work to do in looking at more details into those to convince myself and that is the onus that is on me and everyone else. Every one will be accountable for their own actions.
I am questioning every sentence written in the thing, takes time. But i can say that for every 1 thing i find as fact the 10 that you claim to be inconsistencies will be, in my limited experience (which is probably more experience than yours in regards to the bible? maybe not) , due to your own misinformation or lack of information. Remember a short time ago i was just like you, had the same views on the bible as everyone else, that it was just a load of shit but as i asked questions about it i got reasonable answers and my misinformation was corrected and lack of information began to become less, and hence the process began.
"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. " ??? "(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
"If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years."
what do you think iv been doing for the last 3 years? I have been meeting up with people who devote their lives to this stuff, who study it every single day. every single sentence gets scrutinized, i have witnessed this process. the amount of knowledge these guys have on the scriptures is incredible.
I'm so confused. In my experience free will is in opposition to fate, and if I was going to put religion on one side or the other, I would put religion on the side of fate. but here you are saying that there is no free will that it all comes down to physics and that means no god. Before I got to that last paragraph I thought you were setting up an argument for intelligent design, which is what it sounded like.
Using logical arguments to try and disprove religion makes my heart sink, because religion is a matter of belief. Which basically means that despite logical evidence otherwise you continue to believe. It's just apart of who you are. maybe it's the way physics made you perhaps. but when I see these logical arguments which (i'm not saying are wrong) it just irks me, because its basically saying here is a reason why god doens't exist and if you continue believing then you are stupid. When it's not about whether or not the mythical creature actually exist but bringing something into your life that you believe you are lacking, whether it be guidance, moral compass, or just hope. yeah religion also makes wars and bigots but you win some you lose some.
so all of that aside, I find the discussion of whether or not there is actually free will to be fascinating, and a much better point of discussion, if you keep it away from all that here's why it disproves religion.
OP's argument seems to be that some religions use free will to explain the existence of evil. Then, if hard determinism is taken at face value, free will doesn't exist. Then assuming evil exists, and free will can't be used to explain it, the religion is wrong.
One problem with that; if hard determinism is taken at face value, evil doesn't exist. (and doesn't need to be explained) Being unable to explain the physics of a non-physical concept like evil is a logical certainty.
Assuming evil and hard determinism is like saying 1=2.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
How exactly does the Old Testament give us an idea of God's standards? Every single Christian I know cherry pick from the Old Testament. What kind of standards and morals can God teach when his followers can't even come up with a concensus on which standards to follow?
Some events in the Bible and some figures in the Bible can be proven by archeological evidence and historical writings, but the more fantastical events that happened, like Moses parting the sea, and the Great Flood, are hard to substantiate. To the people of the time, a drought causing a section of a large river to recede or a flash flood wiping out a village could be seen as supernatural in origin. They tell their family in another village, their family passes the story along, mixing the details up or inventing new ones to make their story better received, and in the end, it's written down in the Bible as supposedly historical fact. Look up the tale of King Arthur and his knights.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion." What about the phrase right after it? "...Though not beheld".
As for the prophecies in the Bible, vague words don't mean anything. You're telling us that you believe in soothsayers as well? I would love for you to list the prophecies made in the Bible and give us a word by word translation on how they relate to something that happened after. As for 4000 years of historical "fact" that the Bible seems to espouse, why don't you take a look through the history books by the various historians throughout the ages and compare them to the Bible? If you want to be scientific, you have to be thorough, and above all else you have to be questioning and interpreting every sentence in the Bible, because for every 1 historical "fact" you might find in the Bible, I can pick up the book and give you 10 inconsistencies.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22)
The "circle" that's translated here can also mean an arch, which is what this line is alluding to. The arch of the heavens. + Show Spoiler +
The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.
As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water.
If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years.
"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. " ??? "(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
That line indicates that the water level rose and rain fell. That's it, there is no greater understanding of deep underwater springs behind that passage.
I chose the fantastic elements of the book because it's part of the book. You can't pick and choose, you have to take the whole book under consideration when you're studying it. The book reads like a fairy tale, with the mundane mixed in with the supernatural.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
People use the term random a lot, but quantum mechanics doesn't actually postulate that the underlying processes are necessarily truly 'random', just non-determinate. There is a big difference. I'm not saying that free will is the collapsing of a probability function into an observable state, I don't actually know or have a strong opinion either way, but, if free will was that, it would be in line with what we know about physics.
This post will get lost though, as they always do... and people will go on arguing as though it never existed. *sigh
The reason people can be so anti-religious is because of the way religion is forced on people who don't have the skills/ability to think rationally and logically for themselves. Specifically and most importantly - children, the cycle of religous beliefs being passed onto children, is viewed by non-believers as a form of brainwashing. And I share this view...
The reason we search to 'disprove' religious claims is because the premise of those beliefs are most commonly a result of The environment you we're raised in. It is rare, though not impossible, to find a very religious person whose family/social groups are not religious at all. The generalization is that believers were on some level manipulated into the belief. We are not frustrated by the fact that you believe, rather we are frustrated by the way religion spreads like a virus to those not empowered to think for themselves.
Trying to prove or disprove god exists is a pointless discussion because it is a belief. Religion is a grown ups Santa, imo, and I am not interested in what people believe in, rather the means under which they gain this belief.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
How exactly does the Old Testament give us an idea of God's standards? Every single Christian I know cherry pick from the Old Testament. What kind of standards and morals can God teach when his followers can't even come up with a concensus on which standards to follow?
Some events in the Bible and some figures in the Bible can be proven by archeological evidence and historical writings, but the more fantastical events that happened, like Moses parting the sea, and the Great Flood, are hard to substantiate. To the people of the time, a drought causing a section of a large river to recede or a flash flood wiping out a village could be seen as supernatural in origin. They tell their family in another village, their family passes the story along, mixing the details up or inventing new ones to make their story better received, and in the end, it's written down in the Bible as supposedly historical fact. Look up the tale of King Arthur and his knights.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion." What about the phrase right after it? "...Though not beheld".
As for the prophecies in the Bible, vague words don't mean anything. You're telling us that you believe in soothsayers as well? I would love for you to list the prophecies made in the Bible and give us a word by word translation on how they relate to something that happened after. As for 4000 years of historical "fact" that the Bible seems to espouse, why don't you take a look through the history books by the various historians throughout the ages and compare them to the Bible? If you want to be scientific, you have to be thorough, and above all else you have to be questioning and interpreting every sentence in the Bible, because for every 1 historical "fact" you might find in the Bible, I can pick up the book and give you 10 inconsistencies.
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22)
The "circle" that's translated here can also mean an arch, which is what this line is alluding to. The arch of the heavens. + Show Spoiler +
The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.
As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water.
If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years.
"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. " ??? "(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
That line indicates that the water level rose and rain fell. That's it, there is no greater understanding of deep underwater springs behind that passage.
I chose the fantastic elements of the book because it's part of the book. You can't pick and choose, you have to take the whole book under consideration when you're studying it. The book reads like a fairy tale, with the mundane mixed in with the supernatural.
Ah i see your point now, one could assume that because of the rain that the water levels were rising without a knowledge of their being deep watery springs is what i am saying.
of course the whole book has to be cohesive within itself i have mentioned that many times and have yet to come up with a decisive answer as to why it cannot be true. similarly i am yet to convince myself that it is true. the book does read like a fairy tale because it involves things above our capacity to fully comprehend. its irrelevant how it sounds whats important is what we can know and prove. if i told some geezer back in 2000b.c.e that i could talk to another person on the other side of the world by tapping on a piece of plastic you think that would sound like a fairy tale to him? but is it true? (im trying poorly to describe me typing on my keyboard and you reading and understanding what i have written. Someone would probably argue semantics that we arent actually talking, however the point stands that we are communicating to a degree)
hence we look at things like the dead sea scrolls that contain prophecies about Jesus and are carbon dated to 200 years before he was alive.
On March 07 2012 12:52 somatic wrote: As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
You cant judge God based on what someone who claims to be His follower says.E.g. If i say im an expert at SC2 but cant tell you how to hold off a 4gate as terran, than do i really know how to play SC2? or is it just SC2 that is broken and 4 gates cannot be held off? - this is the cause of much grief when new strategies come out that seem imba, people just like to take the easy road and QQ and say its not possible but someone will come along and show them how to hold it off and all will be forgotten.
I did briefly address this issue before. In saying “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). I do not claim myself to know or act in complete harmony with the bible, heck i masturbated about 10 times in the last two days. I'm just trying to defend it with what i do know.
Yes some bible events can be substantiated and some not. But why would you focus on what we do not know about the bible in an attempt to understand it, its not going to lead anywhere constructive to hypothesize about what happened at the parting of the red sea, just look to somewhere where you can find answers.
As for the Isaiah quote I have a source that says it can be translated as a sphere. So this argument will now deteriorate into my scholar is better than your scholar but ultimately will lead no where.
As for the prophecies i mentioned, i was interested in the ones that had already come true not ones made willy-nilly by any old "sooth sayer" and hence gave me evident demonstration of things hoped for though not yet beheld. As in by fulfilling prophecies in the past He has provided evident demonstration that the promises He made regarding the future will be beheld.
And as for a deeper description of the prophecies i mentioned well that is beyond the scope of this thread and my knowledge to be honest, i have work to do in looking at more details into those to convince myself and that is the onus that is on me and everyone else. Every one will be accountable for their own actions.
I am questioning every sentence written in the thing, takes time. But i can say that for every 1 thing i find as fact the 10 that you claim to be inconsistencies will be, in my limited experience (which is probably more experience than yours in regards to the bible? maybe not) , due to your own misinformation or lack of information. Remember a short time ago i was just like you, had the same views on the bible as everyone else, that it was just a load of shit but as i asked questions about it i got reasonable answers and my misinformation was corrected and lack of information began to become less, and hence the process began.
"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. " ??? "(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
"If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years."
what do you think iv been doing for the last 3 years? I have been meeting up with people who devote their lives to this stuff, who study it every single day. every single sentence gets scrutinized, i have witnessed this process. the amount of knowledge these guys have on the scriptures is incredible.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the Koran's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of Koran's student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If Allahis good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow Allah's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that Allah is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was Allah's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the Koran.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the Koran actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the Koran, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the Koran actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and Allahruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the Koran, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
I don't think Allah is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe Allah has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "Allah MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.[/QUOTE] Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for Allah to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if Allah intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Koran is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the Koran, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the Koran is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the Koran as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the Koran is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for Allah, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
You cant judge Allah based on what someone who claims to be His follower says.E.g. If i say im an expert at SC2 but cant tell you how to hold off a 4gate as terran, than do i really know how to play SC2? or is it just SC2 that is broken and 4 gates cannot be held off? - this is the cause of much grief when new strategies come out that seem imba, people just like to take the easy road and QQ and say its not possible but someone will come along and show them how to hold it off and all will be forgotten.
I did briefly address this issue before. In saying “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). I do not claim myself to know or act in complete harmony with the Koran, heck i masturbated about 10 times in the last two days. I'm just trying to defend it with what i do know.
Yes some Koran events can be substantiated and some not. But why would you focus on what we do not know about the Koran in an attempt to understand it, its not going to lead anywhere constructive to hypothesize about what happened at the parting of the red sea, just look to somewhere where you can find answers.
As for the Isaiah quote I have a source that says it can be translated as a sphere. So this argument will now deteriorate into my scholar is better than your scholar but ultimately will lead no where.
As for the prophecies i mentioned, i was interested in the ones that had already come true not ones made willy-nilly by any old "sooth sayer" and hence gave me evident demonstration of things hoped for though not yet beheld. As in by fulfilling prophecies in the past He has provided evident demonstration that the promises He made regarding the future will be beheld.
And as for a deeper description of the prophecies i mentioned well that is beyond the scope of this thread and my knowledge to be honest, i have work to do in looking at more details into those to convince myself and that is the onus that is on me and everyone else. Every one will be accountable for their own actions.
I am questioning every sentence written in the thing, takes time. But i can say that for every 1 thing i find as fact the 10 that you claim to be inconsistencies will be, in my limited experience (which is probably more experience than yours in regards to the Koran? maybe not) , due to your own misinformation or lack of information. Remember a short time ago i was just like you, had the same views on the Koran as everyone else, that it was just a load of shit but as i asked questions about it i got reasonable answers and my misinformation was corrected and lack of information began to become less, and hence the process began.
"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. " ??? "(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
"If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Koran first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years."
what do you think iv been doing for the last 3 years? I have been meeting up with people who devote their lives to this stuff, who study it every single day. every single sentence gets scrutinized, i have witnessed this process. the amount of knowledge these guys have on the scriptures is incredible.
The point of that above post is to just say - do you realise how your arguments are coming across? I mean, if a Muslim or Buddhist came up to you and started arguing the way you do against people who don't believe in the Bible - by saying things like: "Your argument that Buddha should fix everything is unfounded" or "Your argument that Allah should fix everything is unfounded." At the end of the day, you're trying to convince rational people of the existence of a deity to fix things up, when in reality if a Muslim came up to you saying you should believe in the Koran, you would not be convinced at all and be wondering why in the world he thinks you should be expected to look at things the way you do. You would likewise conclude that the only reason he thinks the Koran is so damn valid is because he was raised in an Islamic country, just as you were likely raised in a Christian household.
On March 07 2012 04:10 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Good and evil can only exist if there is an ultimate standard that exists outside people. You can't claim murder is wrong on based on religious teachings, and then discount the religious teachings that say god isn't responsible for murders but the person who commits them. Just so you can understand why I'm asking that you prove in the absence of god that murder is wrong, since that is the basic argument you are making against a "good" god existing when evil also exists and is preventable.
I addressed this in a previous post, but to add to this:
no christian can possibly argue for absolute morality, because the god of the bible ordered and committed genocide multiple times. not to mention slavery, misogyny, racism, stoning people to death for breaking the sabbath, etc... every time it is brought up, theists simply argue: "gods ways are above our own, who are you to judge him"
if morality is absolute, i absolutely can judge the actions of bible god as evil. the fact that theists have to defend genocide kinda pokes holes in their statements.
This is incorrect. First off you misunderstand people in the bible doing things, with god saying they should happen. I'm looking at the quotes from the bible about people dying, and many of them have no such quotations of "and god said ''". This means the writers were saying what the view on things were that day, not that god himself said it.
Also can you explain how you know what all of gods standards are for all of gods actions, considering that god only gave men 10 of those laws to follow?
And can you tell me where god said he hates all women (misogyny) and everything about people is determined by their race (racism).
Now about the mass murders, there wasn't a genocide commited in the bible. The bible doesn't say god ordered the jews to kill them because they were canaanites or because they were phillistines. Only that these groups were all cannanites or phillistines. Based on the definition of genocide, any killing can be considered genocide. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", is broad enough that killing anyone one person of any group ever to exist can be considered genocide. The allies bombed specifically german cities, and attacked specifically german armies, can be considered genocide. Genocide is defined so broadly anything can be genocide. If all killings are genocide, we can throw out the word and it's very negative meaning, and instead just look at the killings and see if they are legal. Trying to say that a genocide takes place de facto takes away the justification of a killing is incorrect, because some killings are legal, but all killings can be defined as genocide. If you disagreeing with the death penalty being your basis for this is easily defeatable as a reason, but I won't spend time writing it out unless that happens to be why you don't like killing.
You say that you don't like that breaking the sabbath brings the death penalty, even though it is one of the 10 commandments. Explain to me how you know that god is breaking his own morality by killing a man the worked on the sabbath.
People are mistaking inconsistencies in the bible to actually mean anything. They are not the literal words of god unless god is being quoted. Men wrote the bible. You can see them admitting in the bible that they forgot things. Factual inaccuracies in the bible don't matter, moral inconsistencies do. People are mistaking mens knowledge in the bible and gods knowledge being told. It's a categorization error.
Also physics is the study of physical objects. How is "free will" a physical object, and how are people applying physics to a non physical object.
I think people are making very simple errors in their thinking and it's driving them to extremes they can't back up. I'm not sure why people can't agree to disagree and let the factual nature of an assumption be found out apon death. Die and turn into nothing, well I guess you know even though you can't think. Die and meet god, you might be incredibly fucked.
Your argument stands if no Christian believes the Bible to be the literal word of God. However, we have someone in here that obviously believes it to be so.
Physics also isn't just the study of physical objects.
On March 07 2012 15:18 Rodimus Prime wrote: The point of that above post is to just say - do you realise how your arguments are coming across? I mean, if a Muslim or Buddhist came up to you and started arguing the way you do against people who don't believe in the Bible - by saying things like: "Your argument that Buddha should fix everything is unfounded" or "Your argument that Allah should fix everything is unfounded." At the end of the day, you're trying to convince rational people of the existence of a deity to fix things up, when in reality if a Muslim came up to you saying you should believe in the Koran, you would not be convinced at all and be wondering why in the world he thinks you should be expected to look at things the way you do. You would likewise conclude that the only reason he thinks the Koran is so damn valid is because he was raised in an Islamic country, just as you were likely raised in a Christian household.
They come across how ever the reader chooses to view them, that is obviously your take on the situation, i dont tell people what to think i provide them with my perspective and try to enlighten them or be enlightened myself, that is how intelligent, rational discussions take place, it is indeed a rarity among societies these days.
I agree most people form their religious beliefs from being taught by their parents or social surroundings and it is likely someone with my beliefs would come from a christian household I however come from a non religious family. I would say it is just as likely that an atheist is so because he was brought up to be one but in saying this i mean two things. They could be an atheist because their parents/social surroundings taught them that that was the most correct reasoning but the most probable reason someone becomes an atheist these days is because their religious teachings thus far has been done so inadequately that the student or child is left with no option but to use their power of reasoning to decide that the belief in a God is the wrong option. In the case of the bible, this has resulted from generation upon generation of subverting the information contained in the bible and releasing false information about what is in it by the people who claim to be authorities on the subject and using this power for some alternative agenda. Worse than those who do not believe are those who claim to know and release false doctrines misleading the nations. You dont have to look far to see the hypocrisy in most religious organisations these days, eh?
I would be interested in learning about the Koran unfortunately we are all under heavy time constraints these days. Should my studies of the bible end with my finding a reasoning that disproves it or something maybe i will look into it. I probably wont look into it though, the only reason i got into looking into the bible was because a bunch of people were willing to dedicate their time to teaching me and i had the luxury of having a bit of spare time on my hands at that particular time. Its not like i was on some spiritual quest or something. If a similar group of Muslims offered me the same proposition then i would have to consider it.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
What about Leviticus 11:20-23.
It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
so leviticus 11:21 reads: "Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth."
I read it as saying insects have four legs that are used to crawl (or "go upon") additionally they have 2 other legs used for leaping therefore having six in total. The inconsistency is in your interpretation, not the scriptures itself. When one interpretation does not add up we should consider another explanation that does in order for the entire body to be coherent and hence after many hours of contemplating on the scriptures there should be only one correct way to interpret the scriptures so that it all adds up within itself.
What about the rest of it?
From my (beautiful, almost 2 century old wood bound ) King James Version:
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Your translation reads differently to mine, so I'm not sure what's accurate (edit: I am now, mine is. At least from google). The above quite clearly talks of insects with only 4 legs. e.g. all other insects with four legs.
There are a few versions which significantly change what the passage says, for example the GOD'S WORD translation changes "that has four legs" to "that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal". Take a good look at which version you have.
This thread has become a free will vs Christianity, why? The topic is free will vs Religion, not Christianity.
Must I tell you again that Christianity is not a religion?
Yes, there is free will. However, free will is also limited by nature. For example:
I can choose to eat KFC or subway tonight, and they will affect my destiny. I can also choose to climb a building or not. However I cannot choose to fly, because simply nature does not allow me. Look at birds. They can fly wherever, whenever they want. However, they still cannot defy the laws of gravity/nature.
And lastly, the most important thing to remember is that it is impossible for us humans to understand the relationship betwen free will and God's sovereignty. There are many many many questions that we dont know the answer to in this life. What is required of us is not to understand those questions, but to believe in Him.
If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.
And for those saying the Bible is inconsistent, its because those people took just parts of the Bible without looking at the whole sentence, or even at the context. Not only that, but the reader has to remember that the Bible was written long long ago, and so there will be lots of metaphors, etc. that apply to the Jewish tradition, etc.
Taken from GotQuestions
A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
But then again, even with all this, it is totally up to you to believe in the Bible or not. Yes, you have your freedom. You may choose to believe it or not, in the end it is totally up to you.
If you are one of those people who always say "there is no proof of Jesus this Jesus that, no proof of etc, no proof no proof and no proof", then it is like what I said above,
If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.
On the other hand, if you just believe, just like what it says in the Bible, then you are saved. Simple? Of course, everyone knows it is simple, yet very very difficult to do for many people.
EDIT: Funny how it always ends up as a debate vs Christianity mostly, rarely vs Muslim, Buddhism, etc.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
What about Leviticus 11:20-23.
It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
so leviticus 11:21 reads: "Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth."
I read it as saying insects have four legs that are used to crawl (or "go upon") additionally they have 2 other legs used for leaping therefore having six in total. The inconsistency is in your interpretation, not the scriptures itself. When one interpretation does not add up we should consider another explanation that does in order for the entire body to be coherent and hence after many hours of contemplating on the scriptures there should be only one correct way to interpret the scriptures so that it all adds up within itself.
What about the rest of it?
From my (beautiful, almost 2 century old wood bound ) King James Version:
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Your translation reads differently to mine, so I'm not sure what's accurate (edit: I am now, mine is. At least from google). The above quite clearly talks of insects with only 4 legs. e.g. all other insects with four legs.
There are a few versions which significantly change what the passage says, for example the GOD'S WORD translation changes "that has four legs" to "that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal". Take a good look at which version you have.
yeh different translations are going to happen. when converting from one language to another there is a certain degree of estimation involved. it can be that two different but similar translations are both correct, there is an interpretation involved. what is important is that the message that is being portrayed remains unchanged.
in some circumstances the meaning of a word can even change over time therefore a translation that once was accurate is now not because the word that has been used has had its meaning altered over time.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe. This is simply true in the sense that if free will exists, everything we know about the universe would be wrong. It would imply that the human brain can bend the laws of physics and can rearrange the of motions of particles according to whatever we will. Therefore, such a discovery would fundamentally contradict and rewrite all we know about physics. It is not a stretch to say that the free will I talked about in the OP is unscientific, unproven, and as false as fairies and gods.
Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.
You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
You've essentially cherry-picked certain parts of the Bible while ignoring the parts that do not conform to your worldview. In the process you've made many seriously false claims.
Saying that the barbaric rhetoric in the Old Testament is to show us what not to do today is simply delusional. The Old Testament calls for the killing of homosexuals, the repression and mistreatment of women and the mass-murder of people. Nowhere does it say in the Bible: "oh, by the way, where it says to kill all the unbelievers, we really put that in to show you that that's what you shouldn't do". You can find references for all these evils I mentioned in the Old Testament here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641920-the-god-of-the-old-testament
Also, you've just made that up. It is not the mainstream view of the Church that the Old Testament was written to tell us what not to do. The Old Testament was written by men thousands of years before our time, and it's a direct reflection of the cruel and misogynistic social attitudes of the time. You've essentially cherry-picked the parts which expresses social attitudes that you agree with and classified the others as not to be taken at face value.
Moreover, the vilification of homosexuals in modern society is led proudly by the Church and it's homophobic followers. Therefore, this reserve-psychology strategy is not only untrue, but utterly failing too.
Your defense of the Genesis creation is absolutely unscientific. You claim that Genesis says the earth was created in 7 equal lengths of time, but this is completely erroneous. Here's some real science for you, the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, not over 7 equal lengths of time. Indeed, Genesis goes further to claim that God created light on the first day, and divided the water from the skies on the second day. There was no Earth at that point in time for the universe to be divided into water and sky. On the fourth day he creates the Sun. So where did the light on Earth on the first day come from? On the 5th day he makes living creatures and birds. What about evolution?
These ideas are utter and completely unscientific. Furthermore, they are in direct contradiction with rigorously verified and tested science. And yet you claim this old tome to be a work of perfection. No, it's a heap of falsified nonsense. You've also latched onto an ambiguous passage about the earth being round, even though another poster has already shown that to be an inaccurate interpretation. If it was known in the Bible the earth was round so many years ago, then why wasn't it explicitly and zealously preached in the text of the Bible, as opposed to being merely referenced in one obscure and ambiguous line?
You further assert that there is archeological proof of events in the Bible. But this again is cherry-picking what there is and isn't proof of. There's proof that the person Jesus existed. But there's no proof that his birth was immaculate, no proof that he walked on water, no proof he rose from the dead. There's no proof because these claims are absurd and would contradict all of modern science. There's archeological proof of dinosaurs. Where's that in the Bible? It's not in the Bible because the writers thousands of years ago weren't aware of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The fingerprints of unlearned men from an ancient era are all over the morally reprehensible, unscientific nonsense that is spouted in the Bible.
The most disingenuous of your arguments is that the immaculate conception of Jesus is a miracle and therefore doesn't need proof. This just goes to show that your personal quest for scientific explanations of biblical claims is a dishonest sham. You accept what can be explained away with wishful thinking, such as the Fall of Man due to free will (although I've shown why this is false), while dismissing what can't be explained as a miracle, thereby needing no further explanation.
You search for interpretations of the Bible to make them conform with each other and with the world around us, or at least in your mind. You've done it here, and you've done it in the "bugs with 4 legs" argument. It is truely insulting that you do this, yet claim to be rational and scientifically minded. This is the antithesis of science. Science makes hypothesis, verifies or falsifies it by experimentation, and then refines it. Science does not deduce truth by semantically interpreting and reinterpreting debunked texts to suit the worldview we want.
Of course, there are far more flaws, intolerance, and scientific untruths in the Bible than merely what you have alluded to in the quote and subsequent posts. The homo sapein race has been on Earth for 200,000 years, in the first 198,000 years before the Bible, when our ancestors were murdering each other with stone tools, dying in child birth, worshiping hundreds of different false gods, what did God do? Where was he during this 99% span of human existence? He was a no show because he didn't exist, the Abrahamic God was invented a few thousand years ago and the evidence for this is reflected in the simple-minded and archaic myths of earlier generations.
I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
^isn't the point of the whole free will debate that without it you actually don't have a choice about anything? That the so called choices are predetermined?
On March 07 2012 20:22 DontLoseSightOfIt wrote: Must I tell you again that Christianity is not a religion?
Please, enlighten us as to why.
The most important thing to remember is that it is impossible for us humans to understand the relationship betwen free will and God's sovereignty. There are many many many questions that we dont know the answer to in this life. What is required of us is not to understand those questions, but to believe in Him.
The most important thing to remember is that it is impossible for us humans to understand the relationship betwen free will and Allah's sovereignty (peace be upon Mohammad). There are many many many questions that we dont know the answer to in this life. What is required of us is not to understand those questions, but to believe in Him.
If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.
If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Islam, then... Well... It's very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.
And for those saying the Bible is inconsistent, its because those people took just parts of the Bible without looking at the whole sentence, or even at the context. Not only that, but the reader has to remember that the Bible was written long long ago, and so there will be lots of metaphors, etc. that apply to the Jewish tradition, etc.
And for those saying the Koran is inconsistent, its because those people took just parts of the Koran without looking at the whole sentence, or even at the context. Not only that, but the reader has to remember that the Koran was written long long ago, and so there will be lots of metaphors, etc. That apply to the Muslim tradition, etc.
A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
You (O Muhammad) was not a reader of any Scripture before it, nor did you write (such a Scripture) with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood might (have a right) to doubt it. (al-Ankabut, 29.48)
It is an established, undeniable fact that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, was unlettered. Whereas the Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it:
If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down onto Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter of the like thereof, and call your witnesses, supporters, who are apart from God, if you are truthful. (al-Baqara, 2.23)
Mankind have since been unable to produce a like of only one of its chapters, including, of course, its shortest ones like sura al-Ikhlas or sura al-Kawthar; those who have ventured to do that have all laid themselves open to ridicule. This is a clear proof for the Divine authorship of the Quran.
The revelation of the Quran lasted 23 years. It is inconceivable that any book written by a mortal being in 23 years, one which is a book of Divine truths, metaphysics, religious beliefs and worship, prayer, law and morality, a book fully describing the other life, a book of psychology, sociology, epistemology, and history, and a book containing scientific facts and the principles of a happy life, does not have any contradictory points. Whereas, the Quran openly declares that it has no contradictions at all and therefore is a Divine Book:
Will they not then ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity. (al-Nisa’, 4.82)
But then again, even with all this, it is totally up to you to believe in the Bible or not. Yes, you have your freedom. You may choose to believe it or not, in the end it is totally up to you.
But then again, even with all this, it is totally up to you to believe in the Koran or not. Yes, you have your freedom. You may choose to believe it or not, in the end it is totally up to you.
If you are one of those people who always say "there is no proof of Jesus this Jesus that, no proof of etc, no proof no proof and no proof", then it is like what I said above, If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.
If you are one of those people who always say "there is no proof of Mohammad this Mohammad that, no proof of etc, no proof no proof and no proof", then it is like what I said above, if you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Islam, then... Well... It's very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.
On the other hand, if you just believe, just like what it says in the Bible, then you are saved. Simple? Of course, everyone knows it is simple, yet very very difficult to do for many people.
On the other hand, if you just believe, just like what it says in the Koran, then you are saved. Simple? Of course, everyone knows it is simple, yet very very difficult to do for many people.
I hope this post was as convincing to you as yours was to me.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
What about Leviticus 11:20-23.
It says insects have four legs. I find that quite hard to justify scientifically, and can disprove it quite easily. Is that not an inconsistency in the bible?
so leviticus 11:21 reads: "Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth."
I read it as saying insects have four legs that are used to crawl (or "go upon") additionally they have 2 other legs used for leaping therefore having six in total. The inconsistency is in your interpretation, not the scriptures itself. When one interpretation does not add up we should consider another explanation that does in order for the entire body to be coherent and hence after many hours of contemplating on the scriptures there should be only one correct way to interpret the scriptures so that it all adds up within itself.
What about the rest of it?
From my (beautiful, almost 2 century old wood bound ) King James Version:
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Your translation reads differently to mine, so I'm not sure what's accurate (edit: I am now, mine is. At least from google). The above quite clearly talks of insects with only 4 legs. e.g. all other insects with four legs.
There are a few versions which significantly change what the passage says, for example the GOD'S WORD translation changes "that has four legs" to "that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal". Take a good look at which version you have.
yeh different translations are going to happen. when converting from one language to another there is a certain degree of estimation involved. it can be that two different but similar translations are both correct, there is an interpretation involved. what is important is that the message that is being portrayed remains unchanged.
in some circumstances the meaning of a word can even change over time therefore a translation that once was accurate is now not because the word that has been used has had its meaning altered over time.
People have heavily looked into that passage, with the original Hebrew text. The conclusion is that it says insects have four legs. The response of most Christians including the Catholic church is that the bible was divine inspired but written by humans and can be very wrong in places. I don't think you should take everything in it on fact.
If you do, I really hope you aren't wearing two types of cloth right now. Including polyester/cotton mix.
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
Why should there be a goal? I think that's the flaw of your reasoning. If free will is free, it should not be bound to anything. Goals are determined by needs, so you're pretty much lost in your circular reasoning.
"An agent who makes decisions based off need is not willful. An agent who makes decisions randomly is not willful because decisions must be based off need."
???
Regarding the OP, I am confused. Is he saying that free will is a lie made up by religion? wtf. Religion itself, or at least Christianity, is antithetical to the idea of free will. There can be no human free will in the presence of an omniscient god. I got away from religion to choose my own fate, not be tied down by some pre-conceived notion of what destiny is, and now you guys are all telling me that I'm still not free. T_T
On March 07 2012 20:58 Nevermind86 wrote: I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
I like this post, to me it seems more logical than just saying, Free Will does not exist because our current understanding of science cannot prove that it does.
I am still undecided in my belief though, I think I would have to read Sam Harris' book to completely form an opinion.
The story in the Sam Harris' blog to me does not disprove free will (I know it is not supposed to in itself, but I feel like putting down my opinion on what it means as far as free will is concerned), I only feel it shows how certain life experiences or neurological disorders can impact or limit ones ability to express free will. I agree that if I was exchanged atom for atom, experience for experience, I would have done the same as the two men, but I believe that if it was just my mind that was exchanged, keeping the experiences I have had, that I would have freedom of choice.
I don't quite understand how the laws of physics prevent free will from being possible, (again I would need to read the book or similar literature to form an opinion) but to me it just seems illogical, based on what I perceive from my own consciousness and decisions, that I do not have free will. If I do not have free will then what is the difference between the actions that my body takes when I am asleep compared to those that I "supposedly" decide to take when I am awake? Take scratching an itch for example, when you are awake and you feel an itch you can scratch it or you can choose not to, whereas when you are asleep there is no choice (as far as I know) your brain simply reacts and you scratch it, so what is in-between the itch and the scratch if it is not choice? Are you trying to claim that it is just another chemical reaction based on my genetics and past experiences? If I am understanding the OP correctly, physics as we know it cannot account for the so-called choice, but can it disprove it?
At the moment I feel the similarly about free will as I do about the existence of a God, if they can be disproven and proven to exist respectively, then I will believe, until then, I suppose I will just have to keep on as I always have been.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
Why should there be a goal? I think that's the flaw of your reasoning. If free will is free, it should not be bound to anything. Goals are determined by needs, so you're pretty much lost in your circular reasoning.
"An agent who makes decisions based off need is not willful. An agent who makes decisions randomly is not willful because decisions must be based off need."
???
Regarding the OP, I am confused. Is he saying that free will is a lie made up by religion? wtf. Religion itself, or at least Christianity, is antithetical to the idea of free will. There can be no human free will in the presence of an omniscient god. I got away from religion to choose my own fate, not be tied down by some pre-conceived notion of what destiny is, and now you guys are all telling me that I'm still not free. T_T
You're saying, then, that free will could be random and purposeless?
it doesn't matter if free will exists or not. It is what people perceive our actions to be based on. The human brain is such a complex organ and the duality of mind/matter is another issue. We simply cannot even grasp how physical/chemical/biological phenomenons can lead to something insane like the consciousness.
Arguing about free will is largely a debate on semantics. Most people view free will as the ability to choose and make decisions. This is something pretty much universal to the human existence. If your definition of free will is something that must be free from any other influence, be it instinctual, a chemical processes, or something your friend said to you, of course you will deny its existence.
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true". Then you get into fun stuff like 'all truth is relative', where you're making a truth claim about that very statement, holding that the statement is absolutely true when the statement itself states there is no such thing as absolute truth (: <3 silly relativists :>
of everything being completely and utterly deterministic in the Universe. If you know the momentum, position, velocity etc. all the data about a golf-ball, you can calculate it's exact future trajectory; it's completely deterministic.
But that isn't true for Quantum Phenomena, Heisenberg uncertainty principle bro! Schordinger's cat succinctly summarized: Hav Cat in Box + 1 Radioactive nucleus that will decay eventually, and when it does will trigger toxic gas that will kill cat. Is cat alive or dead?
The cat will only be one of them when we open de box (COLLAPSE OF ZE VWAVEFUuuUNCTIOooON!), probabilisticaly with enough dead\alive cats we can calculate the probability that the radioactive nucleus will decay (see: half-life), but it isn't deterministic, we can't say fo sho this one's done or not, it's just very likely to.
So enough physics. The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't. So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
On March 08 2012 02:31 bITt.mAN wrote: I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true". Then you get into fun stuff like 'all truth is relative', where you're making a truth claim about that very statement, holding that the statement is absolutely true when the statement itself states there is no such thing as absolute truth (: <3 silly relativists :>
of everything being completely and utterly deterministic in the Universe. If you know the momentum, position, velocity etc. all the data about a golf-ball, you can calculate it's exact future trajectory; it's completely deterministic.
But that isn't true for Quantum Phenomena, Heisenberg uncertainty principle bro! Schordinger's cat succinctly summarized: Hav Cat in Box + 1 Radioactive nucleus that will decay eventually, and when it does will trigger toxic gas that will kill cat. Is cat alive or dead?
The cat will only be one of them when we open de box (COLLAPSE OF ZE VWAVEFUuuUNCTIOooON!), probabilisticaly with enough dead\alive cats we can calculate the probability that the radioactive nucleus will decay (see: half-life), but it isn't deterministic, we can't say fo sho this one's done or not, it's just very likely to.
So enough physics. The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't. So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
On March 07 2012 20:58 Nevermind86 wrote: I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
I like this post, to me it seems more logical than just saying, Free Will does not exist because our current understanding of science cannot prove that it does.
I am still undecided in my belief though, I think I would have to read Sam Harris' book to completely form an opinion.
The story in the Sam Harris' blog to me does not disprove free will (I know it is not supposed to in itself, but I feel like putting down my opinion on what it means as far as free will is concerned), I only feel it shows how certain life experiences or neurological disorders can impact or limit ones ability to express free will. I agree that if I was exchanged atom for atom, experience for experience, I would have done the same as the two men, but I believe that if it was just my mind that was exchanged, keeping the experiences I have had, that I would have freedom of choice.
I don't quite understand how the laws of physics prevent free will from being possible, (again I would need to read the book or similar literature to form an opinion) but to me it just seems illogical, based on what I perceive from my own consciousness and decisions, that I do not have free will. If I do not have free will then what is the difference between the actions that my body takes when I am asleep compared to those that I "supposedly" decide to take when I am awake? Take scratching an itch for example, when you are awake and you feel an itch you can scratch it or you can choose not to, whereas when you are asleep there is no choice (as far as I know) your brain simply reacts and you scratch it, so what is in-between the itch and the scratch if it is not choice? Are you trying to claim that it is just another chemical reaction based on my genetics and past experiences? If I am understanding the OP correctly, physics as we know it cannot account for the so-called choice, but can it disprove it?
At the moment I feel the similarly about free will as I do about the existence of a God, if they can be disproven and proven to exist respectively, then I will believe, until then, I suppose I will just have to keep on as I always have been.
I like your post because you focus on how you think about it! A common thought concept is that if we don't seem to "know" something anything is reasonable. Problem is, that's not how understanding things and so called knowledge work.
A simple way to describe the thought process behind knowledge is that it's a huge net of probability calculations. If you want to travel to the south pole how do you know it exists to begin with? The sum of all reasons why you think the south pole exists should be that to you it probably exists.
We are used to everything being predictable with enough understanding, all technology is based on it for example. The pixels on the computer monitors form exact patterns instead of a random mess of colors because we figured a bunch of things out well enough to make what appears to be perfectly predictable computer monitors. When something goes wrong we assume it can be explained, not that something mysterious happened. The reason for that is we learned from past experiences that's how it always seem to be which gives the former a status of - very probable.
Apply this thought process, that all of us use every day to "free will". I can break it down in a simplistic way. 1) Existence: Are there any indications it exists? 2) Need: Should we be able to explain everything we might assign to free will, like emotions and actions with enough understanding of how humans work? As with everything else, the sum of the answers to those questions should be that you think something is more probable than something else.
On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote: No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. ... It would be an evil act regardless.
Evil is not a concept in physics. It doesn't exist in OP's hard deterministic world.
The real world is much more than just what we currently understand about physics. Just because we can not conceive of something deterministically, doesn't prove that it doesn't exist IMO.
P.S. just because Envy is back in town doesn't make it not over
On March 08 2012 02:31 bITt.mAN wrote: I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if ALLAH wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi's book "An introduction to Islam". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in ALLAH's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Five Pillars?
On March 08 2012 02:31 bITt.mAN wrote: I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if GOD wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for GOD". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in GOD's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Gospel?
I don't have all the answers. Sometimes I get caught up and worried about "well even if ALLAH wants us to love him, not just because he forces us to, but that we get to choose him (or not), can't he influence our life and mind in such a way that is conducive to us choosing him? That'd mean it's a way of him controlling us by editing everything around us."
Well that relies on the belief[spoiler=wut?]Read the introduction to Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi's book "An introduction to Islam". You can't make a balanced and well-reasoned argument on something unless you examine the evidence from both sides. It has a brilliant explanation of how, if you are making a truth claim about the nature of something i.e. 'everything is completely deterministic', you take that statement to be true and you believe it to be true. That's a belief, and I can just as equally believe 'not everything is deterministic', you choose to say "yep I agree with that, it looks right to me, I believe it's true".
The point is I choose to believe "not everything is completely deterministic". That takes humility, sayin I believe we CAN'T know everything. Well isn't that scary? No, because I also have trust and faith that there's more to life than just knowing everything, I trust and have faith that it'll be alright even if we don't\can't.
So there can be stuff that doesn't really make sense to me/humanity. Well heck, that's in my frame of reference, it doesn't mean it can't make sense in ALLAH's, so I'm not gonna worry about it bro. All you need to focus on is who you gonna choose, to follow the world, or to seek the Five Pillars?
I heard the jews have a pretty sweet religion too. Catharsism's kinda exotic.
I actually love the ending; "Would you rather live in the actual world... or a fairy tale?" (alternatively read as "something else"). I'm pretty sure the real world exists, I'm pretty sure there are too many fairy tales to believe them all. Therefore, I'll go with the real world.
Edit: I would love to express my thoughts on the concept of free will but honestly I haven't come to a conclusion worth sharing. What I will say is that, for me, if everything is determined it will change nothing for me personally. This is, as has been pointed out, most relevant for legal systems and placing focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Luckily this is already the case in Sweden.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
Lord Brahma created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
Lord Brahma is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of Lord Brahma as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but Lord Brahma - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that Lord Brahma would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without Lord Brahma ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If Lord Brahma came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no Lord Brahma then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove Lord Brahma's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if Lord Brahma is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
I fully expect you to go and read the Hindu scriptures now and believe in Lord Brahma, as I have provided a perfect argument proving evidence of Lord Brahma's existence. You cannot argue with my logic.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe. This is simply true in the sense that if free will exists, everything we know about the universe would be wrong. It would imply that the human brain can bend the laws of physics and can rearrange the of motions of particles according to whatever we will. Therefore, such a discovery would fundamentally contradict and rewrite all we know about physics. It is not a stretch to say that the free will I talked about in the OP is unscientific, unproven, and as false as fairies and gods.
Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.
You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
You've essentially cherry-picked certain parts of the Bible while ignoring the parts that do not conform to your worldview. In the process you've made many seriously false claims.
Saying that the barbaric rhetoric in the Old Testament is to show us what not to do today is simply delusional. The Old Testament calls for the killing of homosexuals, the repression and mistreatment of women and the mass-murder of people. Nowhere does it say in the Bible: "oh, by the way, where it says to kill all the unbelievers, we really put that in to show you that that's what you shouldn't do". You can find references for all these evils I mentioned in the Old Testament here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641920-the-god-of-the-old-testament
Also, you've just made that up. It is not the mainstream view of the Church that the Old Testament was written to tell us what not to do. The Old Testament was written by men thousands of years before our time, and it's a direct reflection of the cruel and misogynistic social attitudes of the time. You've essentially cherry-picked the parts which expresses social attitudes that you agree with and classified the others as not to be taken at face value.
Moreover, the vilification of homosexuals in modern society is led proudly by the Church and it's homophobic followers. Therefore, this reserve-psychology strategy is not only untrue, but utterly failing too.
Your defense of the Genesis creation is absolutely unscientific. You claim that Genesis says the earth was created in 7 equal lengths of time, but this is completely erroneous. Here's some real science for you, the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, not over 7 equal lengths of time. Indeed, Genesis goes further to claim that God created light on the first day, and divided the water from the skies on the second day. There was no Earth at that point in time for the universe to be divided into water and sky. On the fourth day he creates the Sun. So where did the light on Earth on the first day come from? On the 5th day he makes living creatures and birds. What about evolution?
These ideas are utter and completely unscientific. Furthermore, they are in direct contradiction with rigorously verified and tested science. And yet you claim this old tome to be a work of perfection. No, it's a heap of falsified nonsense. You've also latched onto an ambiguous passage about the earth being round, even though another poster has already shown that to be an inaccurate interpretation. If it was known in the Bible the earth was round so many years ago, then why wasn't it explicitly and zealously preached in the text of the Bible, as opposed to being merely referenced in one obscure and ambiguous line?
You further assert that there is archeological proof of events in the Bible. But this again is cherry-picking what there is and isn't proof of. There's proof that the person Jesus existed. But there's no proof that his birth was immaculate, no proof that he walked on water, no proof he rose from the dead. There's no proof because these claims are absurd and would contradict all of modern science. There's archeological proof of dinosaurs. Where's that in the Bible? It's not in the Bible because the writers thousands of years ago weren't aware of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The fingerprints of unlearned men from an ancient era are all over the morally reprehensible, unscientific nonsense that is spouted in the Bible.
The most disingenuous of your arguments is that the immaculate conception of Jesus is a miracle and therefore doesn't need proof. This just goes to show that your personal quest for scientific explanations of biblical claims is a dishonest sham. You accept what can be explained away with wishful thinking, such as the Fall of Man due to free will (although I've shown why this is false), while dismissing what can't be explained as a miracle, thereby needing no further explanation.
You search for interpretations of the Bible to make them conform with each other and with the world around us, or at least in your mind. You've done it here, and you've done it in the "bugs with 4 legs" argument. It is truely insulting that you do this, yet claim to be rational and scientifically minded. This is the antithesis of science. Science makes hypothesis, verifies or falsifies it by experimentation, and then refines it. Science does not deduce truth by semantically interpreting and reinterpreting debunked texts to suit the worldview we want.
Of course, there are far more flaws, intolerance, and scientific untruths in the Bible than merely what you have alluded to in the quote and subsequent posts. The homo sapein race has been on Earth for 200,000 years, in the first 198,000 years before the Bible, when our ancestors were murdering each other with stone tools, dying in child birth, worshiping hundreds of different false gods, what did God do? Where was he during this 99% span of human existence? He was a no show because he didn't exist, the Abrahamic God was invented a few thousand years ago and the evidence for this is reflected in the simple-minded and archaic myths of earlier generations.
I gotta give credit to your tenacity i'll wrap up my posts here because this informal discussion is warranting too much time to continue and i can see my purpose here will not be fulfilled, had the discussion been met with a more sincere attitude i suppose i would of continued.
I've not ignored or disowned any parts of the bible in my discussions yet, probably most people you have encountered in your past discussions of bible will have done so, so please do not lump me as subscribing to the same philosophies as the rest and then pre-counter an argument i haven't made yet. I should have demonstrated clearly through my posts so far about my opinion of popular christianity so your argument that my point does not fit in with what mainstream christianity believes is a bit confusing. Its like your saying im wrong because i dont believe what the churches teach, who themselves are also wrong in your view...
As for the list of points on the dawkins website I will quickly throw an answer back for the first point which is along the lines of God is unpleasant because of: [insert supporting scripture out of context] (2 chronicles15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.")
not my own words here 'Asa is thereafter met by the prophet Azariah, who reminds him: “Jehovah is with you as long as you prove to be with him,” and “if you leave him he will leave you.” He calls to mind the destructive strife the nation experienced when alienated from Jehovah and urges Asa to continue his activity courageously on behalf of pure worship. (2Ch 15:1-7) Asa’s ready response and strengthening of the nation in true service to Jehovah results in a great number of persons from the northern kingdom abandoning that region to join in a grand assembly at Jerusalem in Asa’s 15th year of rule (963 B.C.E.), at which assembly a covenant is made declaring the people’s determination to seek Jehovah and providing the death penalty for those not keeping this covenant'
note that no one was forcing the people from the northern kingdom to agree to this covenant, if they wanted to be a part of Jehovahs people at that time and live under His protection they had to abide by His rules....anyway thats my take on it seeing that scripture for the first time there is a lot of other stuff probably going on at that time that i dont know about so hopefully thats the right idea.
Having a scientific mind im sure you are aware of what extrapolation is. Carbon dating takes a trend that applies over a couple of centuries and assumes it stays true for billions of years, till the dawn of the universe even. Stating such dates as fact is poor scientific technique. Its funny how some things take off and others dont. Its almost as if our thoughts and 'wills' are subject to some sort of external influence that we don't know about....
This sort of logic applies to the real topic of this thread i think also. I think one can only properly subscribe to the possibility there is no such thing as free will given a much greater detail of how our brain works, or in specific how our thoughts develop. I would say that as animals we are bound to our environment and all the inputs we get are a result of it therefore it heavily guides what our will is. So in a sense its not absolute freedom.
As for my most disingenuous of arguments- the miraculous birth of Jesus, i just meant that acquiring any proof of it is likely impossible so why waste time trying to prove or disprove it.. time is better spent looking for answers elsewhere. I was not saying that it was above scrutiny and one must blindly take it as truth, as you would have people believe.
What we know from science so far is so little compared to everything that we could know, 'the more we know the more we know we dont know as the saying goes' to try and subscribe to these big over arching theories as if they were fact is foolishness. It sure is fun the think about these things and learn from them but really we're just scratching the surface.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
Lord Brahma created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
Lord Brahma is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of Lord Brahma as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but Lord Brahma - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that Lord Brahma would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without Lord Brahma ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If Lord Brahma came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no Lord Brahma then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove Lord Brahma's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if Lord Brahma is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
I fully expect you to go and read the Hindu scriptures now and believe in Lord Brahma, as I have provided a perfect argument proving evidence of Lord Brahma's existence. You cannot argue with my logic.
Nice try. You've totally and completely refuted my post in a coherent and logical way!
Except my post had very little to do about God, more to do with the logic behind the creator of a Universe. You really didn't change my post much, a more accurate edit would be to replace God with 'creator'. I'm not really sure what your post is implying or trying to accomplish. You end up looking like an immature and ignorant child.
Good and evil are human constructs to begin with. There is biological pain, the electrical process that's sent from our brains throughout our nervous system, and then there is emotional pain. I try my best to reduce the amount of pain I cause myself and others. You don't need a creator to understand that.
On March 06 2012 11:07 fishjie wrote: Some further thoughts.
Why do christians argue that their god wants free will?
1) tons of bible verses go against this. hardening pharaoh's heart on purpose. "esau i have hated, jacob i have loved". judas being foretold as the traitor. so on and so forth.
2) an omnipotent creator cannot allow free will. if he is not powerful enough to control his creation, but instead gives them freedom, by definition he does not have power over them. the two are mutually exclusive. humans may have the illusion of free will, but god has the ability to coerce them to do anything. it is not truly "free". if god does not have this ability, he is not all powerful.
3) free will cannot coexist with an omniscient creator. by very definition an omniscient creator knows everything that will happen ahead of time, therefore nothing we do is of our own free will, because it is already known.
Finally, I'll conclude with some Epicurus, because the Problem of Evil has already been brought up in this thread, and apologists have already tried to respond. Apologists have struggled centuries with this, but of course there is no good answer. If god knew adam and eve were going to eat the apple, he never would have put them in the garden. then to burn all their descendants in hell forever, despite knowing it was going to happen is just asinine.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?
God created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
God is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of God as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but God - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that God would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward.
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without God ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If God came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no God then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove God's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if God is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
Lord Brahma created our Universe and thus created all of the laws of our Universe, time being one of them.
Lord Brahma is not restricted or bound by time, he is outside of it. When you think of Lord Brahma as all-knowing and think on the fact that he knows what will happen you think of this as if a human, who lives under the laws of our Universe, would know but Lord Brahma - being above the laws of our Universe that he created - doesn't see things in the same timeline that we would. It's quite simple and logical that Lord Brahma would see the timeline itself all at once, not as if he were in this second of our timeline looking onward...
As for the Epicurus quote/argument...saying that no apologist has ever had an answer to this is just ignorant. It's one of the most basic arguments that has been answered a billion times. For you to assume that there is an objective evil then you have to assume there is an objective moral code but without Lord Brahma ( or a 'moral code giver' ) there cannot be an objective evil. If you try to say that the evil referred to is subjective then it's not really evil and not worth arguing.
For there to be good there has to be evil, if there were no evil there would be no free will. If Lord Brahma came down to earth, announced himself and got rid of all evil then we would have no free will. We would just be worshipping machines with no choice in the matter.
It reminds me of something like this: 1.If there is no Lord Brahma then there is no absolute morality 2.If there is no absolute morality then morality must be relative 3.If morality is relative then evil is only a stance and thus does not really exist 4.If there is no evil then the entire problem of evil fails because of the lack of evil So in a way you prove Lord Brahma's existence in your argument trying to refute it.
EDIT - and on a side note, if Lord Brahma is able and not willing to prevent evil that does not make him malevolent, by any definition of the word.
I fully expect you to go and read the Hindu scriptures now and believe in Lord Brahma, as I have provided a perfect argument proving evidence of Lord Brahma's existence. You cannot argue with my logic.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
Yeah I have to agree with you here, the main problem I have though is whether this is the correct definition of free will. I know he just said that is what free will means to him so I wont be too critical. Personally I think that free will is the capacity to make decisions despite influencing factors, not without any influencing factors, otherwise free will is an impossible concept right?
On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote: Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
More the opposite. A person in the same body can show a change in behavior after a change to the brain.
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
Exactly. Determinism is probably true in the really real sense. But it is a deeply dissatisfying answer to the question because it seems to dispel concepts like free will and good/evil. Concepts which seem intrinsically meaningful, but lack a truly objective basis.
Holding ourselves to a subjective standard is possibly a necessary step in coming together under a social contract. That this standard can not be uniquely determined means that we are socially obligated to believe things we can no longer prove. You could negatively frame that as brainwashing, but IEM is starting and my brain stopped working...
On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote: No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. ... It would be an evil act regardless.
Evil is not a concept in physics. It doesn't exist in OP's hard deterministic world.
The real world is much more than just what we currently understand about physics. Just because we can not conceive of something deterministically, doesn't prove that it doesn't exist IMO.
P.S. just because Envy is back in town doesn't make it not over
Evil is no concept in physics indeed, but we are living creatures, able to experience misery or happiness. This allows for a concept of good and evil. It's a concept we created because it's useful.
I've read stephen hawking's book and i do somewhat agree with him. Even the scientists still arguing about this( especially those metaphysics guy). The hardcore determinisism people will say there is no free will as all the particle in our brain will move according to physics laws. We can 100% determine what people will do if we have computer that is fast enough and if we know initial state of all the particle at one time. It is just a theory tho.
On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote: Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy.
What...? That means it's either true or undecidable.
On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote: I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
I've been flirting with responding in this thread, but nothing has really presented itself as a good launchpad. The topic of religion is a distraction. But this has grabbed me because it's both the point, and an introduction to the thing that this thread has missed so far.
You're right -- this argument is purely pedantic because it can't affect the life you live. Indeed, your perception is always that you have free will, and make decisions for yourself. Even if you admit that free will doesn't exist, you still experience it constantly. As far as anyone can say, functionally we have free will.
Think about that. Functionally we have free will.
This is the explanation of the problem. That being, it is rather easy to reason that there is no free will, or at the very least "free will" is a meaningless term.
We experience free will because we cannot know what our choices will be. They arise as the product of unthinkably many real physical events. Some of these may be literally impossible to know/observe/measure, if the veil of quantum mechanics is never pierced. In any case it's impossible to know all of the things that go into a choice. This is more than just because it's an unwieldy task. The physical cost of observation and computation prohibits it. The universe is bounded, and cannot perfectly observe itself.
As an aside, think of Godel's theorem in analogue, if that helps.
Anyway, it's literally physically impossible to attain the perfect information and compute it in a way that would demonstrate what a choice would be before it is made. Put another way, it's impossible to build a universe-predictor, because we are within the universe. The only way to learn the choice is to watch everything play out... and see the thing itself.
To come back to our individual experience: what is that other than one's observation of one's self? This is indeed just self awareness, consciousness. Thus, we experience free will as a retroactive phenomenon. This is not at odds with a deterministic universe; it is in fact the result thereof.
At heart, this puzzle can be understood most broadly under the umbrella of thermodynamics. In a way it is rather liberating. A deterministic universe provides knowable things but we can't ever know them all! Not even what we will do next.
This book walks you through everything I just tried to say; it's very neatly done. There's some random topical stuff but the core is well worth the read.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote: I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Good/evil/free will are all social constructs, they have no objective basis. Evil seems more real because its "evidence" is emotionally compelling. But it is still limited to being something that has to be assumed and can't be proved. IMO dismissing free will just because it can't be proven makes as much sense as dismissing evil for the same reason.
P.S. This line of reasoning makes a decent case for religion, but a horrible case for god. Religion as useful social construct is a moderately positive spin. God as just a useful social construct... P.P.S. This smiley doesn't work > : ) >
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative.
I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at...
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.
"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"
As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.
"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "
If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.
Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.
If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.
***edit*** After reading some of the comments and contemplating the topic a little more it has some interesting implications towards religion, in that if you are willing to accept that we do not have free will, or at least do not understand it, then you may be willing to concede that if a spirit being that was greater than us was to exist it could have influence over our behaviour, or, "will".
The answers to the response you give have been pretty well established since 1955 (see J.L Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence). First, for us, it makes sense to draw a difference between a positive act against a failure to act. For example, when a man is drowning off the coast, many people would say there is a difference between failing to act and allowing that man to die, and physically holding that man's head under the water. It makes sense in this circumstance to draw distinctions between the two. God, however, does not have this luxury. He is all powerful. To god therefore, it makes no sense to draw that sort of distinction. That it is Satan's influence, or humans or whatever is irrelevant. Allowing Satan to do something, and God doing it himself is really no difference at all.
Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen.
Which brings us to this thread. As far as the logical problem of evil is concerned, the only tenable response is a free will defence. In fact, most Christian apologists not only agree but think the matter has already been settled by reason of Platinga's free will defence. For my part, I am content defending J. L Mackie's logical problem of evil simply by asserting the truth of compatibilism.
"Second, it makes no sense to say that God should be concerned that the consequence of his actions prevent him from acting. This is a pointless argument. Humans, and other mortal beings who are not all powerful, have this problem. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need to allow anything to happen so that "His purpose" can be fulfilled. He can just make it happen."
I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.
If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.
As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.
Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.
Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.
Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.
Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.
You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.
The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.
Well you don't offer much to discuss when you say things like 'completely unfounded' and 'simply nonsense and crazy', you need to explain why your views are correct rather than simply state they are. That is how science works right? As i have said before it is your lack of understanding of the what is actually written in the scriptures which is why you have these misinformed opinions of it. I have been studying for three years, trying to prove, scientifically, to myself that it is correct, so far I have gained alot of ground in convincing myself, although still have along way to go which is why i enter into these sorts of discussion because they help me to consolidate what i know and point out any weak spots in which i need to look into further. As i said before i have a degree in engineering, i apply the same problem solving processes to the bible as i do designing a photovoltaic system for someones home, i apply even more scrutiny to the bible because there is alot more on the line and i am probably unreasonably skeptical of it due to the bad name it has in general.
One can say that i'm only making stuff up to suit my point of view but when there is no flaw in the logic any more when does it stop being made up and become a truth? (not trying to imply that there is no flaw in MY logic, but the bibles logic, of which i am far from an expert) wall of text arg
It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.
In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.
You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.
To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.
And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?
Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.
I said free will contradicts our current understanding of the universe. This is simply true in the sense that if free will exists, everything we know about the universe would be wrong. It would imply that the human brain can bend the laws of physics and can rearrange the of motions of particles according to whatever we will. Therefore, such a discovery would fundamentally contradict and rewrite all we know about physics. It is not a stretch to say that the free will I talked about in the OP is unscientific, unproven, and as false as fairies and gods.
Think about what sort of physics is needed to be consistent with free will, one possible wonky explanation could be that there is a higher order truth in the universe, call this L1, of which our laws, call them L2, are only an approximation, and that the laws L1, allow for the human brain to bend L2 in a way that lets humans exhibit free will, then, firstly, my assertion that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of the universe still holds, and secondly, while you're making things up, you might as well claim that fairies exist.
Another possibility is that the universe isn't governed by laws at all, so you do have free will as it wouldn't violate the nonexistent laws of physics. This seems a bit harder to sell.
You say that our current understanding of the universe isn't sufficient for me to so confidently claim that free will does not exist. Our science also isn't sufficiently advanced to rule out fairies. That's why my argument is that free will almost certainly does not exist because it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe, the same argument that is used to rule out the existence of fairies.
The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).
Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) . Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.
The things of the bible that stand out for me are 1. A LOT of prophecies 2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.
Some other things off the top of my head 3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.
(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.
Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.
When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.
And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.
and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.
You've essentially cherry-picked certain parts of the Bible while ignoring the parts that do not conform to your worldview. In the process you've made many seriously false claims.
Saying that the barbaric rhetoric in the Old Testament is to show us what not to do today is simply delusional. The Old Testament calls for the killing of homosexuals, the repression and mistreatment of women and the mass-murder of people. Nowhere does it say in the Bible: "oh, by the way, where it says to kill all the unbelievers, we really put that in to show you that that's what you shouldn't do". You can find references for all these evils I mentioned in the Old Testament here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641920-the-god-of-the-old-testament
Also, you've just made that up. It is not the mainstream view of the Church that the Old Testament was written to tell us what not to do. The Old Testament was written by men thousands of years before our time, and it's a direct reflection of the cruel and misogynistic social attitudes of the time. You've essentially cherry-picked the parts which expresses social attitudes that you agree with and classified the others as not to be taken at face value.
Moreover, the vilification of homosexuals in modern society is led proudly by the Church and it's homophobic followers. Therefore, this reserve-psychology strategy is not only untrue, but utterly failing too.
Your defense of the Genesis creation is absolutely unscientific. You claim that Genesis says the earth was created in 7 equal lengths of time, but this is completely erroneous. Here's some real science for you, the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, not over 7 equal lengths of time. Indeed, Genesis goes further to claim that God created light on the first day, and divided the water from the skies on the second day. There was no Earth at that point in time for the universe to be divided into water and sky. On the fourth day he creates the Sun. So where did the light on Earth on the first day come from? On the 5th day he makes living creatures and birds. What about evolution?
These ideas are utter and completely unscientific. Furthermore, they are in direct contradiction with rigorously verified and tested science. And yet you claim this old tome to be a work of perfection. No, it's a heap of falsified nonsense. You've also latched onto an ambiguous passage about the earth being round, even though another poster has already shown that to be an inaccurate interpretation. If it was known in the Bible the earth was round so many years ago, then why wasn't it explicitly and zealously preached in the text of the Bible, as opposed to being merely referenced in one obscure and ambiguous line?
You further assert that there is archeological proof of events in the Bible. But this again is cherry-picking what there is and isn't proof of. There's proof that the person Jesus existed. But there's no proof that his birth was immaculate, no proof that he walked on water, no proof he rose from the dead. There's no proof because these claims are absurd and would contradict all of modern science. There's archeological proof of dinosaurs. Where's that in the Bible? It's not in the Bible because the writers thousands of years ago weren't aware of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The fingerprints of unlearned men from an ancient era are all over the morally reprehensible, unscientific nonsense that is spouted in the Bible.
The most disingenuous of your arguments is that the immaculate conception of Jesus is a miracle and therefore doesn't need proof. This just goes to show that your personal quest for scientific explanations of biblical claims is a dishonest sham. You accept what can be explained away with wishful thinking, such as the Fall of Man due to free will (although I've shown why this is false), while dismissing what can't be explained as a miracle, thereby needing no further explanation.
You search for interpretations of the Bible to make them conform with each other and with the world around us, or at least in your mind. You've done it here, and you've done it in the "bugs with 4 legs" argument. It is truely insulting that you do this, yet claim to be rational and scientifically minded. This is the antithesis of science. Science makes hypothesis, verifies or falsifies it by experimentation, and then refines it. Science does not deduce truth by semantically interpreting and reinterpreting debunked texts to suit the worldview we want.
Of course, there are far more flaws, intolerance, and scientific untruths in the Bible than merely what you have alluded to in the quote and subsequent posts. The homo sapein race has been on Earth for 200,000 years, in the first 198,000 years before the Bible, when our ancestors were murdering each other with stone tools, dying in child birth, worshiping hundreds of different false gods, what did God do? Where was he during this 99% span of human existence? He was a no show because he didn't exist, the Abrahamic God was invented a few thousand years ago and the evidence for this is reflected in the simple-minded and archaic myths of earlier generations.
I gotta give credit to your tenacity i'll wrap up my posts here because this informal discussion is warranting too much time to continue and i can see my purpose here will not be fulfilled, had the discussion been met with a more sincere attitude i suppose i would of continued.
I've not ignored or disowned any parts of the bible in my discussions yet, probably most people you have encountered in your past discussions of bible will have done so, so please do not lump me as subscribing to the same philosophies as the rest and then pre-counter an argument i haven't made yet. I should have demonstrated clearly through my posts so far about my opinion of popular christianity so your argument that my point does not fit in with what mainstream christianity believes is a bit confusing. Its like your saying im wrong because i dont believe what the churches teach, who themselves are also wrong in your view...
As for the list of points on the dawkins website I will quickly throw an answer back for the first point which is along the lines of God is unpleasant because of: [insert supporting scripture out of context] (2 chronicles15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.")
not my own words here 'Asa is thereafter met by the prophet Azariah, who reminds him: “Jehovah is with you as long as you prove to be with him,” and “if you leave him he will leave you.” He calls to mind the destructive strife the nation experienced when alienated from Jehovah and urges Asa to continue his activity courageously on behalf of pure worship. (2Ch 15:1-7) Asa’s ready response and strengthening of the nation in true service to Jehovah results in a great number of persons from the northern kingdom abandoning that region to join in a grand assembly at Jerusalem in Asa’s 15th year of rule (963 B.C.E.), at which assembly a covenant is made declaring the people’s determination to seek Jehovah and providing the death penalty for those not keeping this covenant'
note that no one was forcing the people from the northern kingdom to agree to this covenant, if they wanted to be a part of Jehovahs people at that time and live under His protection they had to abide by His rules....anyway thats my take on it seeing that scripture for the first time there is a lot of other stuff probably going on at that time that i dont know about so hopefully thats the right idea.
Having a scientific mind im sure you are aware of what extrapolation is. Carbon dating takes a trend that applies over a couple of centuries and assumes it stays true for billions of years, till the dawn of the universe even. Stating such dates as fact is poor scientific technique. Its funny how some things take off and others dont. Its almost as if our thoughts and 'wills' are subject to some sort of external influence that we don't know about....
This sort of logic applies to the real topic of this thread i think also. I think one can only properly subscribe to the possibility there is no such thing as free will given a much greater detail of how our brain works, or in specific how our thoughts develop. I would say that as animals we are bound to our environment and all the inputs we get are a result of it therefore it heavily guides what our will is. So in a sense its not absolute freedom.
As for my most disingenuous of arguments- the miraculous birth of Jesus, i just meant that acquiring any proof of it is likely impossible so why waste time trying to prove or disprove it.. time is better spent looking for answers elsewhere. I was not saying that it was above scrutiny and one must blindly take it as truth, as you would have people believe.
What we know from science so far is so little compared to everything that we could know, 'the more we know the more we know we dont know as the saying goes' to try and subscribe to these big over arching theories as if they were fact is foolishness. It sure is fun the think about these things and learn from them but really we're just scratching the surface.
If you do not disagree nor ignore any part of the Bible, then you accept the murderous, vindictive, gay-hating, misogynistic God of the Old Testament. Yet you still defend a book of unscientific myths that calls for the slaughter of nonbelievers as if it were a work of perfection.
Here's the entire passage you referred to, put into context: + Show Spoiler +
2 Chronicles 15 Asa’s Reform 1 The Spirit of God came on Azariah son of Oded. 2 He went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you when you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you. 3 For a long time Israel was without the true God, without a priest to teach and without the law. 4 But in their distress they turned to the LORD, the God of Israel, and sought him, and he was found by them. 5 In those days it was not safe to travel about, for all the inhabitants of the lands were in great turmoil. 6 One nation was being crushed by another and one city by another, because God was troubling them with every kind of distress. 7 But as for you, be strong and do not give up, for your work will be rewarded.”
8 When Asa heard these words and the prophecy of Azariah son of[a] Oded the prophet, he took courage. He removed the detestable idols from the whole land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns he had captured in the hills of Ephraim. He repaired the altar of the LORD that was in front of the portico of the LORD’s temple.
9 Then he assembled all Judah and Benjamin and the people from Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon who had settled among them, for large numbers had come over to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign. 11 At that time they sacrificed to the LORD seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back. 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side.
16 King Asa also deposed his grandmother Maakah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah. Asa cut it down, broke it up and burned it in the Kidron Valley. 17 Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life. 18 He brought into the temple of God the silver and gold and the articles that he and his father had dedicated.
19 There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of Asa’s reign.
Nowhere does it say that these rules apply only to those who voluntarily joined this nation. Nor would that even excuse the killing of nonbelievers. How do you reconcile this unconscionable evil with your sense of morality? What about the the hundreds of examples of this sort of barbarism in the Bible that you've left unaddressed?
I pointed out that your view is not consistent with mainstream Christianity, not because mainstream Christianity is more correct, but to say that you are making it up. To believe that one arrives at truth by inventing interpretations of the Bible, or that it is a valid source of morality because all the immoral parts can be explained away as examples of what not to do, is completely absurd. Why don't you apply some of these moral lessons in real life, such as calling for women who have had sex before marriage to be stoned to death? Or if this is truly how you discover truth, why don't you use the Bible to derive a new scientific theory and deduce how it can be experimentally tested?
You criticize carbon dating as if you believe that the world is 6000 years old. As if carbon dating was controversial and unreliable science. Carbon dating does not rely on extrapolation in the way that, say, using a regression model for prediction does. Carbon dating uses the known radioactive half-life of a Carbon-14 isotope. The rate at which such an isotope decays is as constant as the mass of a proton or the temperature at which water freezes. You also act as if carbon dating is the only way to determine the age of a fossil, in fact multiple methods exists such as stratigraphy or amino-acid dating, and these methods can be cross-validated. Your attempt to cast doubt on the validity of carbon dating and erroneous claim that it is merely extrapolation demonstrates your utter scientific illiteracy. It also suggests that you're more likely to accept that the Earth is 6000 years old as estimated from the Bible, than verified scientific fact that it is hundreds of millions of years old. In fact, the current estimate is about 4.5 billion years. How can you possibly claim to be rational or scientifically-minded in any way?
And that's only about two points in my post that you've addressed. What about the rest of my post that you've ignored? If you claim to be scientifically-minded and still insist on defending the Bible as if it were the Magnum Opus of the human race and all of existence, you shouldn't demonstrate a mind-boggling lack of scientific knowledge and apply a double-standard to what you require proof of. As you admit, proof for the virgin birth would be virtually impossible. Perhaps you should wonder why, instead of just accepting it. It might have something to do with the fact that it actually is virtually impossible. You've said nothing about why you find "proofs" (or really vague and invented interpretations of the Bible) convincing, yet have shown no discomfort with accepting a claim that is in direct contradiction with the theory of human reproduction, which has never been falsified in the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have been on the Earth.
In your final point and your argument against free will you use "god of the gaps". You claim that there is so much we don't know so it's not unreasonable to accept the Bible to fill in our lack of knowledge. But you neglect that there is so much that we do know. We know people cannot be immaculately conceived. We know they cannot walk on water. We know life evolved on Earth over millions of years. And we know that beating and stoning women and condemning homosexuals isn't the right way to treat them. Foolishness is to accept fables invented by ignorant men who lived 2000 years ago as the source of truth in the universe. Fables that have been debunked and disproved with rigorous science over the course of human history. There is no proof that the Bible is true, science has proved it isn't.
To add to what we do know, we know that it is possible to predict intentions in the brain before the subject is consciously aware of them (see this paper), i.e. by reading the brain, we can predict decisions before a person is aware he has made the decision. This is more scientific evidence against free will, as opposed to dogma from a 2000 year old book. We don't even need to understand the brain to see that free will is almost surely an illusion. This is not a stretch of our limited knowledge, because such an assertion immediately follows from simply noting that the brain is a physical system, and like every other physical system in the universe, it is incapable of disobeying the laws of physics, i.e. incapable of letting you make a choice independent of the prior causes, incapable of granting free will. These prior causes essentially determine your choice. There is a miniscule chance that this claim is wrong. But for it to be wrong, that is to claim otherwise, would be to claim that the brain, unlike every other collection of particles in the universe, has the unique and special property that it can violate the laws of nature and causality.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
To steer this post back on topic:
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect.
As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends.
The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences.
While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him.
On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain:
"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
Of course it's not good to kill evil people, because even they can experience pain and be frightened of death. It's immoral to inflict those things. Even if evil people brought much misery over the world, their well-being must be taken into consideration, too. Killing evil people also raises many more issues: One could always be wrong and kill the wrong guy. And one has to pull the trigger. That could give him nightmares.
Killing is counter-productive to our well-being. And statistics show that death penalty does not lower capital crime rates anyway.
No matter how deterministic the world might be (lack of free will doesn't require a deterministic world, though) one still can do right and wrong things.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
There is no need to have an objective definition of good and evil.
Religious people like to claim that you need God to have a objective definition of good and evil. Let suppose for the sake of argument that you do, and that God exists. Call this objective good, "Good O", and objective evil "Evil O".
Now consider the activities that increase needless human misery and suffering, or that would cause an increase in direct human misery and suffering if left unrestricted and unpunished. Define this as Evil S, i.e. subjective evil. Take the opposite of Evil S, and call this Good S, i.e. subjective good.
It follows by definition that all we need to do to maximize happiness and minimize misery is to increase Good S and decrease Evil S.
Screw Good O and Evil O. Good O and Evil O is unnecessary and irrelevant in practice, once we have defined Good S and Evil S.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
The reason it seems confusing is because you're not going quite deep enough. Think about it this way. Everything we know is set in stone. Physics is a universally predictable science. Now, you can talk all you want about quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about it to predict it yet. Everything else we see and work with is perfectly predictable, the question here is the biological aspect.
From the beginning of time to the beginning of creatures, these things were guided by physics alone. If you rewind the clock, and do it all over again, the same rules will exist, and exactly everything that happened will happen again. The planets will form and move just as they do now, the sun will end up in just its spot, these things are all, unarguably, ruled by "simple" physics, which we can calculate, and which is predictable.
So, I think we would both be in agreement that conditions up to the first life form would be the same, given the above. So, if conditions are exactly the same, then the first life forms would be exactly the same. If the first life forms are the same, and conditions are the same, then the actions of the life forms will be the same. They will do all the same things at all the same times for the same reasons they did the first time around.
And this will hold true until humans. And since you make decisions based on reasoning, all your decisions will be exactly the same, because they will be made for the same reasons and under the same conditions as they were on the first time around.
So, since your thoughts and decisions are based solely on what's around and influencing you, and we've established those will be the same, then you will make all the same decisions.
If I rewind time and play it back for you 30 times, you will make the same decisions every time. Everything will be exactly the same. How does that play with the idea of true free will? How is it possible to reconcile that what you've done is the only thing you could have done, given the conditions?
As I said before. I think purpose, and freedom are the obvious components of free will. Random movements do not denote will and predicted actions do not denote freedom. I think free will contains both.
What we end up with, is the fact that we DO make decisions. We all have the ability to decide to act or not, and functionally, it's almost the same as true free will, and should be treated almost as such. But the problem is, the decisions you make, you cannot decide differently. Anything you do is for reasons, reasons that precede you, and do not originate from nothing. We can act, but only on a determined path. We're unique in the universe in that we, internally, decide our fate. I can decide to dodge a ball, but a planet cannot dodge an asteroid. In so far as this, we have a will, and our will is exerted on the universe. But given a thousand times the same ball in the same conditions is thrown at me, I will dodge every time. I can't reconcile that as truly free, in the classic sense.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
To steer this post back on topic:
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect.
As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends.
The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences.
While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him.
On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain:
"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
I don't think the experiments really have a place in such a discussion over the true nature of free will. It's easy to know that there are some things we don't decide. Our heart beats on its own despite being controlled by our brain, our eyes blink, we recoil from pain, these things happen without conscious thought, and this is obviously well known. It's not unreasonable to think that ideas originate before we're aware of them consciously, and then bubble to the surface. However, a free-willist will, correctly so, point out that we then have the ability to examine this decision and change it if necessary. Sometimes our first hunch isn't correct, and upon much thought, we change it.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
The reason it seems confusing is because you're not going quite deep enough. Think about it this way. Everything we know is set in stone. Physics is a universally predictable science. Now, you can talk all you want about quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about it to predict it yet. Everything else we see and work with is perfectly predictable, the question here is the biological aspect.
From the beginning of time to the beginning of creatures, these things were guided by physics alone. If you rewind the clock, and do it all over again, the same rules will exist, and exactly everything that happened will happen again. The planets will form and move just as they do now, the sun will end up in just its spot, these things are all, unarguably, ruled by "simple" physics, which we can calculate, and which is predictable.
So, I think we would both be in agreement that conditions up to the first life form would be the same, given the above. So, if conditions are exactly the same, then the first life forms would be exactly the same. If the first life forms are the same, and conditions are the same, then the actions of the life forms will be the same. They will do all the same things at all the same times for the same reasons they did the first time around.
And this will hold true until humans. And since you make decisions based on reasoning, all your decisions will be exactly the same, because they will be made for the same reasons and under the same conditions as they were on the first time around.
So, since your thoughts and decisions are based solely on what's around and influencing you, and we've established those will be the same, then you will make all the same decisions.
If I rewind time and play it back for you 30 times, you will make the same decisions every time. Everything will be exactly the same. How does that play with the idea of true free will? How is it possible to reconcile that what you've done is the only thing you could have done, given the conditions?
As I said before. I think purpose, and freedom are the obvious components of free will. Random movements do not denote will and predicted actions do not denote freedom. I think free will contains both.
What we end up with, is the fact that we DO make decisions. We all have the ability to decide to act or not, and functionally, it's almost the same as true free will, and should be treated almost as such. But the problem is, the decisions you make, you cannot decide differently. Anything you do is for reasons, reasons that precede you, and do not originate from nothing. We can act, but only on a determined path. We're unique in the universe in that we, internally, decide our fate. I can decide to dodge a ball, but a planet cannot dodge an asteroid. In so far as this, we have a will, and our will is exerted on the universe. But given a thousand times the same ball in the same conditions is thrown at me, I will dodge every time. I can't reconcile that as truly free, in the classic sense.
I agree with everything except your determinism.
The leading theory of the universe in the first seconds after the big bang is inflation, which says during this short time, the universe expanded at an exponential rate so that the lumpiness of galaxies we see are quantum fluctuations magnified from the subatomic level to the cosmic scale by an exponential expansion rate.
So if we ran the universe again, a different random fluctuation may happen, and the galaxies would be different. We would need the RNG to roll exactly the same numbers again in order to have the same universe.
Of course, nowhere in this randomness is there room for free will.
Free will is an idea, and yea it may be influenced by stimuli but ultimately, your actions are your own.
If you want to go as deep to say that those stimuli are what actually make us make the decisions we do, well then it doesn't matter very much because whether or not they did or do resemble our actions - we believe they are ours as nothing can prove otherwise.
On March 08 2012 23:19 Felnarion wrote: I don't think the experiments really have a place in such a discussion over the true nature of free will. It's easy to know that there are some things we don't decide. Our heart beats on its own despite being controlled by our brain, our eyes blink, we recoil from pain, these things happen without conscious thought, and this is obviously well known. It's not unreasonable to think that ideas originate before we're aware of them consciously, and then bubble to the surface. However, a free-willist will, correctly so, point out that we then have the ability to examine this decision and change it if necessary. Sometimes our first hunch isn't correct, and upon much thought, we change it.
The actions in both experiments were conscious choices which the subject was ask to make.
In the first paper, subjects were asked to press a button, and in the second paper they were asked to flex a finger.
In a seminal experiment, Benjamin Libet and colleagues presented a fundamental challenge to our intuitions about howwemake decisions.1,2 They investigated the temporal relationship between brain activity and a conscious intention to perform a simple voluntary movement.1,2 Subjects viewed a “clock” that consisted of a light point moving on a circular path rotating once every 2.56 seconds. They were asked to flex a finger at a freely chosen point in time and to remember and report the position of the moving light point when they first felt the urge to move. The reported position of the light could then be used to determine the time when the person consciously formed their intention, a time subsequently called “W,” shorthand for the conscious experience of “wanting” or “will.” Libet recorded encephalography signals (electroencephalogram (EEG)) from movement-related brain regionswhile subjectswere performing this task (Fig. 1A). It had previously been known that negative deflections of the EEG signal can be observed immediately preceding voluntarymovements3 (Fig. 1B). These so-called readiness potentials (RPs) originate from brain regions involved in motor preparation, primarily supplementary motor cortex (SMA) and premotor cortex, although preparatory signals can also be observed across wider cortical and subcortical regions4– 7 (Fig. 1C). Libet and colleagues were interested in whether the RP might begin to arise even before the person hadmade up their mind to move. Indeed, they found that the RP already began to rise a few hundred milliseconds before the “feeling of wanting” entered awareness (Fig. 1A). This systematic temporal precedence of brain activity before a freely timed decision was taken as evidence that the brain had made the decision to move before this decision entered awareness. It was proposed that the RP reflects the primary cortical site where the decision to move is made.8
And the first paper:
We performed a novel variant of the Libet task49 using fMRI instead of EEG. The hemodynamic latency of fMRI signals means that it is suitable only for assessing decision-related brain activity across longer timespans. Our focus on longer timespans and the low temporal sampling rate of the fMRI signal enabled us to relax our requirement on temporal precision of the timing judgment, thus overcoming a severe limitation of Libet’s original experiments. We replaced the rotating clock with a randomized stream of letters that updated every 500 m/sec. Subjects had to report the letter visible on the screen when they made their conscious decision. This mode of report has the additional advantage of being unpredictable, whichminimizes systematic preferences for specific clock positions.
Subjects were asked to freely decide between two response buttons while lying in an MRI scanner (Fig. 3). They fixated on the center of the screen where the stream of letters was presented. While viewing the letter stream they were asked to relax and freely decide at some point in time to press either the left or right button. In parallel, they were asked to remember and report the letter presented when their decision to move reached their awareness. Importantly, in order to facilitate spontaneous behavior, we did not ask subjects to balance the left and right button selections in successive trials. This would require keeping track of the distribution of button selections in memory and would also encourage preplanning of choices. Instead, we selected subjects that spontaneously chose a balanced number of left and right button presses without prior instruction based on a behavioral selection test before scanning.
Hi everyone, I made an account just to post on this topic because I feel it need be to share something with you all. I am am 22 Male Florida and I recieved the holy ghost in January this year. I followed Acts 2:38 Repent, was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and I prayed through and fasted for the gift of the holy ghost. I was singing and worshipping god in my car one morning two days after getting baptized when I felt my tongue being pulled by something and shortly after i realized my lips and tongue wasnt moving to the owrds of the music anymore so I turned down my radio and man sure enough I was speaking in another langauge. Just wanted to say I don't just hope that that there is a God, and when I die I might be saved. I KNOW God is real for a fact. I read a sign that said "Give Jesus a try, the world will always take you back." I only wnet to this holy ghost filled churhc because my Mom told me she had went and received teh gift of the holy ghost and I thought at first man that is non sense, INSANE. I went into this churhc thinking "These people believe they have the spirit of God in them, they believe they are speaking in other tongues as the spirit gives utterance" God sure showed me. Jesus christ is the one true God, the Bible is real, Jesus Christ is real and he lives today. Jesus Christ is the name of the Father , Son, and the Holy Ghost. God is omnipresent he can be in teh Flesh the son, in heaven as our Father Jesus Christ, and he can be in the Holy Ghost as he fills people wiht his spirit and moves into congregations as the power of the holy ghost falls in the name of Jesus Christ. God bless you all.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
To steer this post back on topic:
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect.
As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends.
The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences.
While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him.
On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain:
"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
I've said this a few times in this thread. Quantum physics is not fundamentally random. This is an outdated idea in quantum physics. Though things make look random or probabilistic, this is due to our previous lack of understanding of how it worked. It is deterministic and in fact the same thing is happening every time.
On March 08 2012 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote: All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random.
QM doesn't say things, we are limited to interpreting it. It seems odd to me that you would accept a fundamentally random interpretation (Copenhagen?) given the hard determinism in your OP.
I will be reading this thread but in the meantime I felt that Spinoza deserves an honorable mention on the subject of free will and religion! Simply put he bridged the gap from medieval theology and morality to modern religious thought as well as secular moral philosophy with his book Ethics. He postulates that the whole universe is composed of a singular 'substance' which is something which exists in and of itself and is the cause for its own existence, in other words it depends on nothing to exist but all other things depend upon it. To Spinoza this 'substance' is an infinite all encompassing thing- something we would call God.
To bring this back to the topic of free will- Spinoza's answer to this question is that in all things exist God, thought and corporeal matter- so there is no ultimate self determining human free will for him However the way to live in the most active and free manner is to live a rational life led by reason in which I affirm myself through acting towards what I deem as good, what I desire. This to Spinoza is the closest thing we have to 'free will'- the ability to determine for ourselves what is 'good' and then to actively and rationally act towards that goal.
On March 08 2012 21:58 paralleluniverse wrote: Now consider the activities that increase needless human misery and suffering, or that would cause an increase in direct human misery and suffering if left unrestricted and unpunished. Define this as Evil S, i.e. subjective evil.
So is adultery/abortion/speeding/pirate bay "Evil S"?
It is one thing to have a unique definition of good/evil. It is much, much harder to get everyone to agree with it.
On March 09 2012 00:16 Erack wrote: Hi everyone, I made an account just to post on this topic because I feel it need be to share something with you all. I am am 22 Male Florida and I recieved the holy ghost in January this year.
I also had a god experience once, but it was the father, not the holy ghost (nor was is Jesus. One time I had the strong impression that Christ actually speaks to me through Luke, but it wasn't as strong as the aforementioned one.)
I had the experience as I went through a small forest and I felt that the father offers me belief. My body felt strangely tense as I detected something like a higher mind which communicated to me that it's true (the bible stories.) I was open (in fact, I still am) to that possibility.
However I did not turned christian. I further studied the bible and saw that it cannot tell the truth, because of several obvious contradictions to the reality. I did not made a claim about the creation of the universe based on a personal experience I had. I read most ancient greek tales about their gods, many books of the bible and the entire koran (all translated to German as I don't speek Greek, nor Hebrew, nor Arabic.) So I know the imagery and stories about different gods, which obviously plays a role in experiences I have. I also went to a christian secondary school. Some years ago I felt the impulse to attend a service, so I went to a church (it was a catholic one) and did.
But in the end, any activity regarding religion shows me that it cannot be true. Every religion makes very specific claims without proof. Reason tells me to not accept scriptural authority.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined!
If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do!
I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative.
I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at...
This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad."
The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way.
Is killing bad?
Yes just like a rusty gear is bad.
Why is rust bad?
It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally.
So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally?
????
See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists.
Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application.
On March 08 2012 21:58 paralleluniverse wrote: Screw Good O and Evil O. Good O and Evil O is unnecessary and irrelevant in practice, once we have defined Good S and Evil S.
Why are you so accepting of a subjectively based evil and so dismissive of a subjectively based free will? Do you not see that as being inconsistent?
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
The reason it seems confusing is because you're not going quite deep enough. Think about it this way. Everything we know is set in stone. Physics is a universally predictable science. Now, you can talk all you want about quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about it to predict it yet. Everything else we see and work with is perfectly predictable, the question here is the biological aspect.
From the beginning of time to the beginning of creatures, these things were guided by physics alone. If you rewind the clock, and do it all over again, the same rules will exist, and exactly everything that happened will happen again. The planets will form and move just as they do now, the sun will end up in just its spot, these things are all, unarguably, ruled by "simple" physics, which we can calculate, and which is predictable.
So, I think we would both be in agreement that conditions up to the first life form would be the same, given the above. So, if conditions are exactly the same, then the first life forms would be exactly the same. If the first life forms are the same, and conditions are the same, then the actions of the life forms will be the same. They will do all the same things at all the same times for the same reasons they did the first time around.
And this will hold true until humans. And since you make decisions based on reasoning, all your decisions will be exactly the same, because they will be made for the same reasons and under the same conditions as they were on the first time around.
So, since your thoughts and decisions are based solely on what's around and influencing you, and we've established those will be the same, then you will make all the same decisions.
If I rewind time and play it back for you 30 times, you will make the same decisions every time. Everything will be exactly the same. How does that play with the idea of true free will? How is it possible to reconcile that what you've done is the only thing you could have done, given the conditions?
As I said before. I think purpose, and freedom are the obvious components of free will. Random movements do not denote will and predicted actions do not denote freedom. I think free will contains both.
What we end up with, is the fact that we DO make decisions. We all have the ability to decide to act or not, and functionally, it's almost the same as true free will, and should be treated almost as such. But the problem is, the decisions you make, you cannot decide differently. Anything you do is for reasons, reasons that precede you, and do not originate from nothing. We can act, but only on a determined path. We're unique in the universe in that we, internally, decide our fate. I can decide to dodge a ball, but a planet cannot dodge an asteroid. In so far as this, we have a will, and our will is exerted on the universe. But given a thousand times the same ball in the same conditions is thrown at me, I will dodge every time. I can't reconcile that as truly free, in the classic sense.
I agree with everything except your determinism.
The leading theory of the universe in the first seconds after the big bang is inflation, which says during this short time, the universe expanded at an exponential rate so that the lumpiness of galaxies we see are quantum fluctuations magnified from the subatomic level to the cosmic scale by an exponential expansion rate.
So if we ran the universe again, a different random fluctuation may happen, and the galaxies would be different. We would need the RNG to roll exactly the same numbers again in order to have the same universe.
Of course, nowhere in this randomness is there room for free will.
Just because we don't fully understand an underlying causation doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it also doesn't mean it's just RNG or determined by chance (or random).
I also disagree with the quoted post's definition of free will regarding the presence of reason being a violation of free will which is a rather meaningless definition. Of course you won't have free will with that definition because EVERY action has a necessary cause behind it, even if we don't necessarily know what that cause is.
These passages from "of Liberty and Necessity" pretty much sum it up
For what is meant by liberty, when applied to voluntary actions? We cannot surely mean that actions have so little connexion with motives, inclinations and circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we can conclude the existence of the other. For these are plain and acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; this is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no subject of dispute.
It is universally allowed that nothing exists without a cause of its existence, and that chance, when strictly examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real power which has anywhere a being in nature.
Morality is simply humans trying to ascribe some exceptional meaning or importance to their desires.
That's all morality is, strong emotional desires regarding the behavior of other people. By even calling it something other than desire we imply it's somehow distinct from it.
But all of metaphysics is this error: the error of inventing a word and then supposing it has an objective meaning which can be debated or discussed.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined!
If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do!
I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
I will think about it for a day or two before I reply in verbatim. I don't know if this world is completely deterministic, but even if, I don't see the concept of good and evil rendered empty. But again, I will take some time before I reply.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative.
I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at...
This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad."
The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way.
Is killing bad?
Yes just like a rusty gear is bad.
Why is rust bad?
It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally.
So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally?
????
See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists.
Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application.
Where did his logic assume a choice of whether to replace the gear or not? he said "should it be replaced and thrown away? yup". Which is the same as your machine, you just DO. Not cause rusty gears are "bad" but because otherwise the machine doesn't work. So you just do.
And do you not see that your own second point invalidates your first? You say "It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally." and "Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." but then right before say "If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better", but you have removed a bad part, you have improved the machine over its previous state. That's making something better.
And how do you make this jump? "you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined" why does one require the other? Maybe I'm not seeing an extra step?
And another small mistake, "Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." The killer is the rusty gear, and killING would be like rust. Is rust bad? No, it is rust. Is rust on a gear bad? Yes, because it prevents etc.... So is killing bad? No. But if killing is screwing with your machine then you best stamp it out. I don't care if the universe doesn't give a SHIT about whether rust is a cool guy or not, I don't like it so get the fuck outta my machine. We just have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to keep there OWN machine clean. If your machine gets killer rust (you would dislike being killed) then there should be a way to keep your machine clean. It will naturally stay clean, as you will naturally not die (at least in a day-to-day sense) so thats fine. The only way it will get rusty is if some fucker comes and rusts it up. Curse you oxygen! So you throw that shit in jail, or kill it, or whatever, so that it doesn't rust your machine again, or someone else's machine.
Two guys are banging their machines together? Hey, if their machines can withstand that than by all means continue. They aren't banging them into your machine. Your machine will similarily not bang naturally. So you don't need protection from these two guys banging their OWN machines together, but if you go break it up than they need protection against YOU (homosexuality is ok and should be protected, basically).
Your machine may just 'do' but that is still something that can be strived for. If a machine is not for doing then why be a machine at all? But it is, so do it does. Allowing machines to DO whatever it is they do could be morality, could it not?
On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote: [quote] The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative.
I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at...
This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad."
The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way.
Is killing bad?
Yes just like a rusty gear is bad.
Why is rust bad?
It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally.
So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally?
????
See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists.
Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application.
Where did his logic assume a choice of whether to replace the gear or not? he said "should it be replaced and thrown away? yup". Which is the same as your machine, you just DO. Not cause rusty gears are "bad" but because otherwise the machine doesn't work. So you just do.
Clearly the word "should" implies a choice between two options, one of which should be chosen and the other should not. In determinism, the machine always works, there are no rusty gears, so I won't bother to defend your other attacks on the analogy.
And do you not see that your own second point invalidates your first? You say "It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally." and "Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." but then right before say "If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better", but you have removed a bad part, you have improved the machine over its previous state. That's making something better.
I think you just misunderstood this argument, if you are part of the machine, and you think you removed a bad part, you haven't actually made the machine better, because you are simply doing your part of the machine. Make more sense?
And how do you make this jump? "you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined" why does one require the other? Maybe I'm not seeing an extra step? See above. You are part of the machine, acting deterministically. You are not acting critically to improve anything, you are acting without choice.
And another small mistake, "Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." The killer is the rusty gear, and killING would be like rust. Is rust bad? No, it is rust. Is rust on a gear bad? Yes, because it prevents etc.... So is killing bad? No. But if killing is screwing with your machine then you best stamp it out. I don't care if the universe doesn't give a SHIT about whether rust is a cool guy or not, I don't like it so get the fuck outta my machine. We just have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to keep there OWN machine clean. If your machine gets killer rust (you would dislike being killed) then there should be a way to keep your machine clean. It will naturally stay clean, as you will naturally not die (at least in a day-to-day sense) so thats fine. The only way it will get rusty is if some fucker comes and rusts it up. Curse you oxygen! So you throw that shit in jail, or kill it, or whatever, so that it doesn't rust your machine again, or someone else's machine.
But you have to prove that killing someone affects negatively the functioning of the universe, which of course it doesn't, that's my point. By assuming that killing someone is a negative impact on the universe, you are in fact assuming that it is evil! But this is supposed to be the a "proof" that evil can exist! See how that's circular?
Two guys are banging their machines together? Hey, if their machines can withstand that than by all means continue. They aren't banging them into your machine. Your machine will similarily not bang naturally. So you don't need protection from these two guys banging their OWN machines together, but if you go break it up than they need protection against YOU (homosexuality is ok and should be protected, basically).
Your machine may just 'do' but that is still something that can be strived for. If a machine is not for doing then why be a machine at all? But it is, so do it does. Allowing machines to DO whatever it is they do could be morality, could it not? The machine here is the universe, and no, just because it exists does not mean it has a purpose. And no, since you are part of the universe, allowing it to be the universe is not morality.
My replies in bold italics.
Also, by the way, I don't believe in determinism, but I think people who do should be consistent about it.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
To steer this post back on topic:
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect.
As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends.
The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences.
While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him.
On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain:
"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
Looks very interesting.
Will respond to paralleluniverse's post once I get the time to read it
However the Catch 22 argument applies in the context of the argument. I cannot prove whether I can make decisions for no reason, because its impossible to ever be in such a scenario, but you can prove that you make decisions with a reason. Therefore there is no way of arguing against this, its a fallacious argument, although I don't know which kind of fallacy it is.
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong
I guess the best way to rebut is, you cannot prove whether you can or can't make a random decision without any influences or reason, therefore you cannot use this in your argument. Its not wrong because its a Catch22, but its not true, because its impossible to test such a scenario, its merely an assumption, and posing the question leads the responder into a trap. If its not true, then its wrong.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
The reason it seems confusing is because you're not going quite deep enough. Think about it this way. Everything we know is set in stone. Physics is a universally predictable science. Now, you can talk all you want about quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about it to predict it yet. Everything else we see and work with is perfectly predictable, the question here is the biological aspect.
From the beginning of time to the beginning of creatures, these things were guided by physics alone. If you rewind the clock, and do it all over again, the same rules will exist, and exactly everything that happened will happen again. The planets will form and move just as they do now, the sun will end up in just its spot, these things are all, unarguably, ruled by "simple" physics, which we can calculate, and which is predictable.
So, I think we would both be in agreement that conditions up to the first life form would be the same, given the above. So, if conditions are exactly the same, then the first life forms would be exactly the same. If the first life forms are the same, and conditions are the same, then the actions of the life forms will be the same. They will do all the same things at all the same times for the same reasons they did the first time around.
And this will hold true until humans. And since you make decisions based on reasoning, all your decisions will be exactly the same, because they will be made for the same reasons and under the same conditions as they were on the first time around.
So, since your thoughts and decisions are based solely on what's around and influencing you, and we've established those will be the same, then you will make all the same decisions.
If I rewind time and play it back for you 30 times, you will make the same decisions every time. Everything will be exactly the same. How does that play with the idea of true free will? How is it possible to reconcile that what you've done is the only thing you could have done, given the conditions?
As I said before. I think purpose, and freedom are the obvious components of free will. Random movements do not denote will and predicted actions do not denote freedom. I think free will contains both.
What we end up with, is the fact that we DO make decisions. We all have the ability to decide to act or not, and functionally, it's almost the same as true free will, and should be treated almost as such. But the problem is, the decisions you make, you cannot decide differently. Anything you do is for reasons, reasons that precede you, and do not originate from nothing. We can act, but only on a determined path. We're unique in the universe in that we, internally, decide our fate. I can decide to dodge a ball, but a planet cannot dodge an asteroid. In so far as this, we have a will, and our will is exerted on the universe. But given a thousand times the same ball in the same conditions is thrown at me, I will dodge every time. I can't reconcile that as truly free, in the classic sense.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
To steer this post back on topic:
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect.
As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends.
The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences.
While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him.
On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain:
"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
I don't think the experiments really have a place in such a discussion over the true nature of free will. It's easy to know that there are some things we don't decide. Our heart beats on its own despite being controlled by our brain, our eyes blink, we recoil from pain, these things happen without conscious thought, and this is obviously well known. It's not unreasonable to think that ideas originate before we're aware of them consciously, and then bubble to the surface. However, a free-willist will, correctly so, point out that we then have the ability to examine this decision and change it if necessary. Sometimes our first hunch isn't correct, and upon much thought, we change it.
You make some interesting points, but the overall example you base it on ruins it for me. We cannot rewind time, and how do you know that the act of rewinding time would not have us peer into a different dimension because I make a different decision upon the act of observation and inherent randomness in decision making, thus proving true free will exists. Again we cannot know.
I feel that there is a distinct lack of concrete non-trivial examples that are relevant to us.
Okay, lets see here... I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want. I don't think anyone has the right to chastise others for how they live their lives, because the chastisers believe that their religion's rules define moral correctness in society.
PLEASE SEPARATE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. All I fucking see on the news is republican (and democratic politicians) bringing their religious beliefs to the floor of discussion. A christian or catholic politician is SCARED TO AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION because they will lose support of other fellow christians. Really? Gtfo
On March 09 2012 10:42 LarJarsE wrote: Okay, lets see here... I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want. I don't think anyone has the right to chastise others for how they live their lives, because the chastisers believe that their religion's rules define moral correctness in society.
PLEASE SEPARATE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. All I fucking see on the news is republican (and democratic politicians) bringing their religious beliefs to the floor of discussion. A christian or catholic politician is SCARED TO AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION because they will lose support of other fellow christians. Really? Gtfo
There is a separation of state and religion. The problem is lobby groups and their influence. I think a much bigger problem is how powerful rich lobby groups are (although this wouldn't be a problem if voters weren't dumb enough to believe them), they destroy the welfare of the country for their own personal gains.
On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision.
There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it.
Why?
Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions?
I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes?
Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not?
Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why?
If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
To steer this post back on topic:
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect.
As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends.
The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences.
While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him.
On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain:
"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
I've said this a few times in this thread. Quantum physics is not fundamentally random. This is an outdated idea in quantum physics. Though things make look random or probabilistic, this is due to our previous lack of understanding of how it worked. It is deterministic and in fact the same thing is happening every time.
On March 08 2012 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote: All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random.
QM doesn't say things, we are limited to interpreting it. It seems odd to me that you would accept a fundamentally random interpretation (Copenhagen?) given the hard determinism in your OP.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined!
If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do!
I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
We do make (more or less) rational choices, however we do them subconsciously. To make choices doesn't require free will. Take a computer program which reacts to input. With the same input the program will provide the same output all the time, but it could have produced another output if the input would be different. It made a choice though the choice is determined only by it's actual program and the input. It does not have free will, yet it reacts to input with choosing different calculations depending on the input.
On a neuronal level our choice making it is even unconsciously as neurons itself are not conscious. We *do* react to our environment, it's just that we don't react with free will. If I touch a cup of coffee which is too hot, I pull my hand back. It's a choice I made, but it's not a choice of free will. While it maybe appears to me that the choice having Winona Ryder on my desktop background is from free will, it's still not. I can follow Harris's argument that choices which appear to be my conscious choices aren't my choices in the sense that I made them consciously.
The good/evil thing is separate from free will I think. What we do is what we do. Good things are things we should do, evil things are things we shouldn't do or even we should fight against. I am creating a realm of values here.
We need a good moral to have a good life for everyone, regardless if we have free will or not. When we are destined (let's say the world is deterministic, though I don't know if the world is deterministic) it's good if the determination leads us to a better life. This doesn't happen without our acts.
In other words, even if the world is provable deterministic, we still need to punish criminals and support goodness. We still need to develop a good moral code and follow it.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a marine accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this, yet still call themselves the religion of peace.
Not all religions are created equal.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder and intolerance is Islam.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
No, I get it. I get it. Free will doesn't exist when you want to disdain certain people based on their beliefs. Free will exists (or at least we get to pretend that it does) when you want to disdain certain people based on their actions.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
No, I get it. I get it. Free will doesn't exist when you want to disdain certain people based on their beliefs. Free will exists (or at least we get to pretend that it does) when you want to disdain certain people based on their actions.
I have no problem with blasting people for their actions or beliefs, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of free will.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
No, I get it. I get it. Free will doesn't exist when you want to disdain certain people based on their beliefs. Free will exists (or at least we get to pretend that it does) when you want to disdain certain people based on their actions.
I have no problem with blasting people for their actions or beliefs, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of free will.
Evidently.
I mean it sounds like it doesn't matter, in your mind, whether or not people are ultimately responsible their own actions. What really matters is whether or not those actions conform to your personal and admittedly subjective definition of "good" and "evil." And if they don't well then they get a good blasting.
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
No, I get it. I get it. Free will doesn't exist when you want to disdain certain people based on their beliefs. Free will exists (or at least we get to pretend that it does) when you want to disdain certain people based on their actions.
I have no problem with blasting people for their actions or beliefs, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of free will.
Evidently.
I mean it sounds like it doesn't matter, in your mind, whether or not people are ultimately responsible their own actions. What really matters is whether or not those actions conform to your personal and admittedly subjective definition of "good" and "evil." And if they don't well then they get a good blasting.
So what's the problem?
It's usually not about good and evil, it's about being right versus being wrong, which is essentially the purpose of most debates.
The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
If we don't have free will, then we have no choice in what we do, whether we decide to lock them up or otherwise.
And there's plenty of good reasons to put murderers in jail, it prevents them from reoffending, it gives victims a sense of closure, it deters crime, etc.
If some mad scientists unleashed a mindless rampaging robot, your argument is do nothing about it.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
The way I see it, if nobody has free will then we don't have any choice about punishing any of these people. On the other hand, if we might choose not to punish them because they had no free will, it follows that they, too, were excercising their free will when they committed their crimes and we should punish them for choosing to do wrong. Either way, they should be punished.
IMO it doesn't really matter if we have free will or not unless we can predict what we're going to do before-hand and then we can change it (but then is our new decision already built in to what we're eventually going to do?).
I remember that one study where they could supposedly predict is a person would pick left or right before the person themselves had picked it... but I can't remember what it was called (and I can't find a link)....
On March 07 2012 04:10 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Good and evil can only exist if there is an ultimate standard that exists outside people. You can't claim murder is wrong on based on religious teachings, and then discount the religious teachings that say god isn't responsible for murders but the person who commits them. Just so you can understand why I'm asking that you prove in the absence of god that murder is wrong, since that is the basic argument you are making against a "good" god existing when evil also exists and is preventable.
I addressed this in a previous post, but to add to this:
no christian can possibly argue for absolute morality, because the god of the bible ordered and committed genocide multiple times. not to mention slavery, misogyny, racism, stoning people to death for breaking the sabbath, etc... every time it is brought up, theists simply argue: "gods ways are above our own, who are you to judge him"
if morality is absolute, i absolutely can judge the actions of bible god as evil. the fact that theists have to defend genocide kinda pokes holes in their statements.
This is incorrect. First off you misunderstand people in the bible doing things, with god saying they should happen. I'm looking at the quotes from the bible about people dying, and many of them have no such quotations of "and god said ''". This means the writers were saying what the view on things were that day, not that god himself said it.
Also can you explain how you know what all of gods standards are for all of gods actions, considering that god only gave men 10 of those laws to follow?
And can you tell me where god said he hates all women (misogyny) and everything about people is determined by their race (racism).
Now about the mass murders, there wasn't a genocide commited in the bible. The bible doesn't say god ordered the jews to kill them because they were canaanites or because they were phillistines. Only that these groups were all cannanites or phillistines. Based on the definition of genocide, any killing can be considered genocide. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", is broad enough that killing anyone one person of any group ever to exist can be considered genocide. The allies bombed specifically german cities, and attacked specifically german armies, can be considered genocide. Genocide is defined so broadly anything can be genocide. If all killings are genocide, we can throw out the word and it's very negative meaning, and instead just look at the killings and see if they are legal. Trying to say that a genocide takes place de facto takes away the justification of a killing is incorrect, because some killings are legal, but all killings can be defined as genocide. If you disagreeing with the death penalty being your basis for this is easily defeatable as a reason, but I won't spend time writing it out unless that happens to be why you don't like killing.
You say that you don't like that breaking the sabbath brings the death penalty, even though it is one of the 10 commandments. Explain to me how you know that god is breaking his own morality by killing a man the worked on the sabbath.
People are mistaking inconsistencies in the bible to actually mean anything. They are not the literal words of god unless god is being quoted. Men wrote the bible. You can see them admitting in the bible that they forgot things. Factual inaccuracies in the bible don't matter, moral inconsistencies do. People are mistaking mens knowledge in the bible and gods knowledge being told. It's a categorization error.
Also physics is the study of physical objects. How is "free will" a physical object, and how are people applying physics to a non physical object.
I think people are making very simple errors in their thinking and it's driving them to extremes they can't back up. I'm not sure why people can't agree to disagree and let the factual nature of an assumption be found out apon death. Die and turn into nothing, well I guess you know even though you can't think. Die and meet god, you might be incredibly fucked.
ok you need to read the bible more. no genocide? hello, what is the flood? it wiped out all of humanity. that was god genociding man.
how was the slaughter of the canaanite tribes not genocide? god gave SPECIFIC instructions to kill every man, woman, and child. that's genocide.
no misogyny in the bible? cmon now. i can immediately think of one off the top of my head: 1 corinthians 14:34 "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
and that's not even getting into the old testament.
its funny that you mention that the bible is written by humans. you're absolutely right. religion is MAN MADE. i'm glad you can admit that. you cherry pick the verses that you choose to believe in, and rationalize away the rest as it being "misquoting of god". you know why god is misquoted? because he does not exist. if such a supreme being actually existed, and he was capable of communicating with the world, would the various religions of the world be riddled with scientific errors, contradictions, and historical inaccuracies? imagine a bible where it was scientifically accurate, none of the passages contradicted each other, the ethics system mirrored that of today (as opposed to the ethics system in the OT, which is based on primitive tribal morals where slavery and genocide are ok). but its not, because it was written by humans CENTURIES ago.
men who wrote the various books in the bible had specific political and social world views they were trying to enforce through these stories. because the authors had different agendas, there are obviously lots of contradictions. you're right there are no moral inconsistencies, the OT god is consistently BAD. slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, the list goes on and on.
if you admit the bible was written by men, and that it is not the inerrant word of god, then how do you know what passages to believe and what passages not to believe? how do you know your interpretation is valid and another person's is not? in other words, why believe any of it at all.
Hey guys, Hitler didn't necessarily commit genocide...How do we know he wasn't trying to exterminate everyone, but the people he just happened to pick were Jews. It's possible.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
If we don't have free will, then we have no choice in what we do, whether we decide to lock them up or otherwise.
And there's plenty of good reasons to put murderers in jail, it prevents them from reoffending, it gives victims a sense of closure, it deters crime, etc.
If some mad scientists unleashed a mindless rampaging robot, your argument is do nothing about it.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be restrained or prevented from re-offending, my point is that they can never be held accountable for it. If I came into your house right now and destroyed everything you owned, you would have no right to be angry with me because I didn't choose to do those things. You might request that I be restrained from do so again in the future, but I can't be held accountable for anything I just did.
This is the problem, no one can ever be held responsible for what they do under this logic. There are no such things as morals anymore because morality covers only the choices you make and such would imply free will, which we have assumed to be non-existent. Good people and bad people no longer exist, the only people who exist are those who have been forced to make "good" choices and those who have been forced to make "bad" choices.
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote: I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a marine accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this, yet still call themselves the religion of peace.
Not all religions are created equal.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder and intolerance is Islam.
what about the sinhalese buddhists and the sri lankan genocide?
all religions are situational: in peaceful western countries, christianity and islam are usually pretty benign. in fucked up places, they often get used to justify fucked up things.
I might get flamed for this (maybe even banned, I don't know how that works), but I just want to put my own view on religion.
I think religion is bad.
Now, I am not saying believing something higher that watches out for you and wants you to be happy is bad.
I say the churches and the rules are bad for us all. From "No, Gay people are bad." to "Let's crash airplanes into towers", Religion does nothing good for this world and society. There is hypocrisy, there is hatred towards each other and there is just too much bad going hand in hand with religion that is, most of the time, supposed to be all about love and peace.
I say, yes, there is free will. Yeah, there might be a bigger plan going on for all of us, but while things could hint towards that, I like to believe we can all ignore those and go our own way, twisting and changing the story as we want it to.
There are people that tell me they like to pray to god to watch out for them so they feel save. Alright, I am totally fine with that.
But then they tell me there parents told them going to a party at night with their friends could result in a spot in hell, and I just bang my head against the wall and ask why parents think they can use the church to brainwash their children.
So to sum it up, I can say: Believing in a god is fine with me. Basing rules around this god, telling others how to live their lives, cause that is what God would want them to do, that is where I say screw religion.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
If we don't have free will, then we have no choice in what we do, whether we decide to lock them up or otherwise.
And there's plenty of good reasons to put murderers in jail, it prevents them from reoffending, it gives victims a sense of closure, it deters crime, etc.
If some mad scientists unleashed a mindless rampaging robot, your argument is do nothing about it.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be restrained or prevented from re-offending, my point is that they can never be held accountable for it. If I came into your house right now and destroyed everything you owned, you would have no right to be angry with me because I didn't choose to do those things. You might request that I be restrained from do so again in the future, but I can't be held accountable for anything I just did.
This is the problem, no one can ever be held responsible for what they do under this logic. There are no such things as morals anymore because morality covers only the choices you make and such would imply free will, which we have assumed to be non-existent. Good people and bad people no longer exist, the only people who exist are those who have been forced to make "good" choices and those who have been forced to make "bad" choices.
I don't see how that's a problem. Knowledge and understanding of things can almost always be used to our advantage and I can't think of any reasons why a better understanding of "free will" would be bad. How would it not be a good thing to have a deeper understanding of human behavior for example?
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote: [quote] Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'.
I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view.
As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes.
As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative.
I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at...
This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad."
The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way.
Is killing bad?
Yes just like a rusty gear is bad.
Why is rust bad?
It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally.
So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally?
????
See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists.
Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application.
Where did his logic assume a choice of whether to replace the gear or not? he said "should it be replaced and thrown away? yup". Which is the same as your machine, you just DO. Not cause rusty gears are "bad" but because otherwise the machine doesn't work. So you just do.
Clearly the word "should" implies a choice between two options, one of which should be chosen and the other should not. In determinism, the machine always works, there are no rusty gears, so I won't bother to defend your other attacks on the analogy.
And do you not see that your own second point invalidates your first? You say "It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally." and "Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." but then right before say "If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better", but you have removed a bad part, you have improved the machine over its previous state. That's making something better.
I think you just misunderstood this argument, if you are part of the machine, and you think you removed a bad part, you haven't actually made the machine better, because you are simply doing your part of the machine. Make more sense?
And how do you make this jump? "you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined" why does one require the other? Maybe I'm not seeing an extra step? See above. You are part of the machine, acting deterministically. You are not acting critically to improve anything, you are acting without choice.
And another small mistake, "Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." The killer is the rusty gear, and killING would be like rust. Is rust bad? No, it is rust. Is rust on a gear bad? Yes, because it prevents etc.... So is killing bad? No. But if killing is screwing with your machine then you best stamp it out. I don't care if the universe doesn't give a SHIT about whether rust is a cool guy or not, I don't like it so get the fuck outta my machine. We just have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to keep there OWN machine clean. If your machine gets killer rust (you would dislike being killed) then there should be a way to keep your machine clean. It will naturally stay clean, as you will naturally not die (at least in a day-to-day sense) so thats fine. The only way it will get rusty is if some fucker comes and rusts it up. Curse you oxygen! So you throw that shit in jail, or kill it, or whatever, so that it doesn't rust your machine again, or someone else's machine.
But you have to prove that killing someone affects negatively the functioning of the universe, which of course it doesn't, that's my point. By assuming that killing someone is a negative impact on the universe, you are in fact assuming that it is evil! But this is supposed to be the a "proof" that evil can exist! See how that's circular?
Two guys are banging their machines together? Hey, if their machines can withstand that than by all means continue. They aren't banging them into your machine. Your machine will similarily not bang naturally. So you don't need protection from these two guys banging their OWN machines together, but if you go break it up than they need protection against YOU (homosexuality is ok and should be protected, basically).
Your machine may just 'do' but that is still something that can be strived for. If a machine is not for doing then why be a machine at all? But it is, so do it does. Allowing machines to DO whatever it is they do could be morality, could it not? The machine here is the universe, and no, just because it exists does not mean it has a purpose. And no, since you are part of the universe, allowing it to be the universe is not morality.
My replies in bold italics.
Also, by the way, I don't believe in determinism, but I think people who do should be consistent about it.
edit: formatting
Does multiple options require choice? A machine programmed to 'pick the highest number', when given 3 4 7, has options but couldn't be said to have a choice. Why is the machine the whole universe and not only the observable universe? I'm still a little confused by this machine thing. Every day a new journey ^^" I don't know... for some reason I can't let go of the role of the observer, help me out.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Where do you get that hitler did nothing wrong by this logic? The whole point of laws and punishment is to outline what we consider "wrong". I don't know why you bring up hitler I was referring to society's laws not extreme cases. There is no death penalty where I'm from so yes, it's all about rehabilitation and deterrence. Rehabilitation doesn't mean sitting on a tropical island getting therapeutic care. That sort of rehab is for people with emotional problems and such. I'm talking about rehabilitation for criminals which includes serving prison time. There's also an educational and therapeutic aspect.
An extreme case such as hitler may deserve the death penalty though. There's the issue of whether or not you can be sure someone is really rehabilitated and won't do it again. There's also the issue of deterrence i mentioned. The law has to be strict enough to prevent crime while being forgiving enough to allow people to earn their way back into society (for most cases). At best hitler would get life in prison.
And yes hitler is the product of his environment. Had he not had the upbringing that he did it's unlikely he would have become what he was. We're all shaped by our experiences and instincts. That's the cause and effect I was talking about. Hitler wasn't forced to do anything against his will. He wanted to murder the jews and so he did. What I'm saying is that his will (in other words his decision making) was determined by his experiences and his instincts, both of which are deterministic in nature.
If Hitler had been given a different environment, different chemical factors, guess what? It is entirely possible the mass extinction of the jews wouldn't have happened.
Your arguing about semantics over the definition of fault. Even in a deterministic frame work you can place fault on someone for doing something, they still did it. Sure, it was their environment and brain that got them there, but that is still a huge part of their identity.
The whole no one is responsible argument is terrible. In our heads we are obviously making decisions. The process to get there being formulaic or somehow freely formed from our above materialistic minds doesn't matter on the end result and practical implications.
The implications of not having free will are dire, but that is not an argument for free will. It is an argument that we should all buy into the illusion of free will. Technically not having free will means that we can't really be held responsible for our actions. In the same vein, it is unjust for god to burn us in hell forever when he created the circumstances which will caused us to be "sinful". You cannot blame an automaton.
Obviously society would break down, so its best to pretend we aren't robots.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically. Watch or read Minority Report if you have to LOL
In response to the video you edited in: a probabilistic quantum universe still doesn't necessarily contain free will. It could be probabilistic, and if you observed multiple instances of the big bang (following through all the way to the development of life), it might turn out different every time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a free will component to how the creatures in the universe act. i'm a physics major, btw, who got interested in physics because of this very question of free will. quantum mechanics gave no answers.
i ultimately concluded that it seems impossible to know whether or not free will exists, and its difficult to define what it would even physically be. people will always act as if it does, so its close enough. i still lean towards it not actually existing (consciousness and our perception of our own reasoning is still just the result of brain processes), but that doesn't mean much in the way of how I'll act in life. Nor would it have any reason to influence how law enforcement agencies work, though you still seem to think so.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically. Watch or read Minority Report if you have to LOL
In response to the video you edited in: a probablistic quantum universe still doesn't necessarily contain free will. It could be probablistic, and if you did multiple instances of the big bang, it might turn out different every time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a free will component to how the creatures in the universe act.
This doesn't really seem to matter; he seems to think assigning blame to people for doing deterministic things is a choice we have. If we happen to justify murder based on our realization of a deterministic universe, that choice was determined prior. If we choose to continue rehabilitation and such, that was also predetermined.
"But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses."
This scenario assumes free will, which in the beginning of your hypothetical doesn't exist. If the universe were deterministic then the future is already set. Our realization of and reaction to existing determinism is set in stone just like this conversation was. If the universe is deterministic then there are no choices we can make to improve\hurt society because by definition we do not have the free will to do so, we are moving along a set path.
tl;dr Saying our acceptance of deterministic reality is bad and should be avoided assumes we have a choice in the matter (free will)
to spin your logic to an absurdity you might recognize:
viruses are just floating bits of rna that self replicate. they clearly have no bad intent, but they hurt us anyway. but since they didn't will themselves to screw us over, we should ignore them and not vaccinate them.
that's essentially the logic you're applying to criminals with no free will. but regardless of their will, we're still going to try to create an overarching system to deter crime, which usually includes punishing criminals. free will does not enter the equation.
what romantic said too! i sensed an inconsistency like that, but he laid it out quite well~
OH I'VE FINALLY PINPOINTED WHERE YOUR MISCONCEPTION CAME FROM.
You seem to think law enforcement is about fairness, and what is right. That's wrong. Law enforcement is always about advancing the will of a group of people, and what they think should be done to people who choose to disrupt their society. Fairness/overarchingmorality isn't the basis (though some groups attempt to use morality as a basis, it still ultimately comes down to creating a list of crimes and punishments).
Guilt is defined by consequence (A killed B, minimum for manslaughter), and in a few cases, intent (A planned to kill B, minimum for murder 2), but intent is still an empirically observable aspect of a crime (often inferred, but still observable), whereas free will is nothing of the sort. Guilt, as defined by most powers that define it, is independent of the existence of free will
In no way does QM make free will possible. The wave function is still deterministic and all it does is make things more random. Randomness is really the opposite of free will, it'd be like judging whether you should kill someone based on a coin flip. Ofc QM isn't completely random in the sense that everything is equally probably. Instead it describes the probabilities of different scenarios. The human brain doesn't have the power to somehow change these probabilities.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically.
The responsibility/excuse stuff is mostly about certain words having a lot of things attached to them. Replace "excuse" with "reason" and something interpreted as bad usually seems neutral, replace "reason" with "excuse" and something neutral usually sounds bad. The words have different uses of course, they just happen to be used a lot in context where they fundamentally mean same thing. Our ability to communicate has a lot of flaws surprise surprise.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically.
The responsibility/excuse stuff is mostly about certain words having a lot of things attached to them. Replace "excuse" with "reason" and something interpreted as bad usually seems neutral, replace "reason" with "excuse" and something neutral usually sounds bad. The words have different uses of course, they just happen to be used a lot in context where they fundamentally mean same thing. Our ability to communicate has a lot of flaws surprise surprise.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically.
The responsibility/excuse stuff is mostly about certain words having a lot of things attached to them. Replace "excuse" with "reason" and something interpreted as bad usually seems neutral, replace "reason" with "excuse" and something neutral usually sounds bad. The words have different uses of course, they just happen to be used a lot in context where they fundamentally mean same thing. Our ability to communicate has a lot of flaws surprise surprise.
i don't understand the relevance
It's a semantic debate when people simply replace "reason" with "excuse", and so on.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically.
The responsibility/excuse stuff is mostly about certain words having a lot of things attached to them. Replace "excuse" with "reason" and something interpreted as bad usually seems neutral, replace "reason" with "excuse" and something neutral usually sounds bad. The words have different uses of course, they just happen to be used a lot in context where they fundamentally mean same thing. Our ability to communicate has a lot of flaws surprise surprise.
i don't understand the relevance
It's a semantic debate when people simply replace "reason" with "excuse", and so on.
I used "excuse," the transitive verb meaning "to let go / to ignore." It's not interchangeable with "reason." I don't think the confusion is semantic. Two of my posts ago, I think I pinpointed where the confusion was, which is that he's assuming law should always operate on "fairness," which can be linked to free will, when it doesn't.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically.
The responsibility/excuse stuff is mostly about certain words having a lot of things attached to them. Replace "excuse" with "reason" and something interpreted as bad usually seems neutral, replace "reason" with "excuse" and something neutral usually sounds bad. The words have different uses of course, they just happen to be used a lot in context where they fundamentally mean same thing. Our ability to communicate has a lot of flaws surprise surprise.
i don't understand the relevance
It's a semantic debate when people simply replace "reason" with "excuse", and so on.
I used "excuse," the transitive verb meaning "to let go / to ignore." It's not interchangeable with "reason." I don't think the confusion is semantic. Two of my posts ago, I think I pinpointed where the confusion was, which is that he's assuming law should always operate on "fairness," which can be linked to free will, when it doesn't.
I probably shouldn't have quoted anyone. Wasn't trying to imply there was something wrong with what you wrote. Just happened to quote the post because it was the last post in the excuse/responsibility discussion.
On March 10 2012 09:35 L3gendary wrote: In no way does QM make free will possible. The wave function is still deterministic and all it does is make things more random. Randomness is really the opposite of free will, it'd be like judging whether you should kill someone based on a coin flip. Ofc QM isn't completely random in the sense that everything is equally probably. Instead it describes the probabilities of different scenarios. The human brain doesn't have the power to somehow change these probabilities.
What do you mean the waveform is deterministic? Like it always collapses the same way under the exact same conditions?
On March 10 2012 09:35 L3gendary wrote: In no way does QM make free will possible. The wave function is still deterministic and all it does is make things more random. Randomness is really the opposite of free will, it'd be like judging whether you should kill someone based on a coin flip. Ofc QM isn't completely random in the sense that everything is equally probably. Instead it describes the probabilities of different scenarios. The human brain doesn't have the power to somehow change these probabilities.
What do you mean the waveform is deterministic? Like it always collapses the same way under the exact same conditions?
well once it collapses it's determined, and we can't go back in time and uncollapse certain wavefunctions. though probability may determine what it collapses into, its still... deterministic in a sense? i think thats what he means
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
I'm still not completely sold on the whole Quantum Physics debunking determinism argument. What's the cause of unpredictability of electrons? If there's a cause isn't it just further justification of a deterministic universe?
On March 10 2012 09:35 L3gendary wrote: In no way does QM make free will possible. The wave function is still deterministic and all it does is make things more random. Randomness is really the opposite of free will, it'd be like judging whether you should kill someone based on a coin flip. Ofc QM isn't completely random in the sense that everything is equally probably. Instead it describes the probabilities of different scenarios. The human brain doesn't have the power to somehow change these probabilities.
What do you mean the waveform is deterministic? Like it always collapses the same way under the exact same conditions?
No, that's not the case, so what I think he means is that given a particular state of the universe, the probability distribution for the position of a particular particle is determined. But where that particle is observed to be is still random.
Sort of like how the chance of rolling a 1 on a dice is deterministic, it's always 1/6. But what the dice actually rolls is random.
here is a question for the "no-free-will atheists": does evolution even make sense in a deterministic universe? wouldn't you have to conclude, that, since everything is determined right from the big bang, that there is a plan (kind of) that lead to your existence? how does that differ from a "divine plan?" /discuss
i'm an atheist, and i think, atheists should own the free-will argument. it's the religious people who will tell you, that god has an awesome plan for your life, who have prophecies and revelations. bad news for free will. we have quantum physics.
This, pretty much. If there is no free will, there might as well be an omniscient god.
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
I'm still not completely sold on the whole Quantum Physics debunking determinism argument. What's the cause of unpredictability of electrons? If there's a cause isn't it just further justification of a deterministic universe?
There's no known cause. Bell's experiment rules out most sensible hidden behind-the-scene causes. If there is a cause, this experiment showed that it has to violate certain seemingly "obvious" principles of physics.
And if there are hidden causes that we don't know about, we're right back to determinism.
here is a question for the "no-free-will atheists": does evolution even make sense in a deterministic universe? wouldn't you have to conclude, that, since everything is determined right from the big bang, that there is a plan (kind of) that lead to your existence? how does that differ from a "divine plan?" /discuss
i'm an atheist, and i think, atheists should own the free-will argument. it's the religious people who will tell you, that god has an awesome plan for your life, who have prophecies and revelations. bad news for free will. we have quantum physics.
This, pretty much. If there is no free will, there might as well be an omniscient god.
Firstly, no free will does not imply determinism, quantum mechanics says the universe is random. And even if the universe is deterministic, and all of this was determined, it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that any god determined this.
The problem with quantum fluctuation = free will is the random nature of it. If quantum fluctuations are where free will lives, this means we should be able to impact quantum fluctuations somehow with our willpower. This makes them predictable,and no longer random. If they are truly random, then we can't put our will upon them. I
The problem with quantum fluctuation = free will is the random nature of it. If quantum fluctuations are where free will lives, this means we should be able to impact quantum fluctuations somehow with our willpower. This makes them predictable,and no longer random. If they are truly random, then we can't put our will upon them. In that case free will dissapears and we are again slave to random quantum fluctuations in comibination with the endless march of cause and effect. I don't think religion has to impact on this argument. An omnipotent, omniscient god poses many more problems for free will than a purely physical universe ever could.
On March 10 2012 09:35 L3gendary wrote: In no way does QM make free will possible. The wave function is still deterministic and all it does is make things more random. Randomness is really the opposite of free will, it'd be like judging whether you should kill someone based on a coin flip. Ofc QM isn't completely random in the sense that everything is equally probably. Instead it describes the probabilities of different scenarios. The human brain doesn't have the power to somehow change these probabilities.
What do you mean the waveform is deterministic? Like it always collapses the same way under the exact same conditions?
The evolution of the wavefunction is deterministic. Once it is measured it collapses to a random point and then continues evolving deterministically. If you could determine the wavefunction of the universe at any point in time you could determine it at any point in the future or past. But that wavefunction would also contain all the cases for things that weren't realized.
There are different interpretations (many worlds, copenhagen etc) of what the wavefunction really is so I'm not going go into it much further because it doesn't relate to this discussion. My point was that the probabilities themselves evolve deterministically and can't just be changed because of somebody willing it.
On March 10 2012 09:02 decemberscalm wrote: Determinism=/=no responsibility
If Hitler had been given a different environment, different chemical factors, guess what? It is entirely possible the mass extinction of the jews wouldn't have happened.
Your arguing about semantics over the definition of fault. Even in a deterministic frame work you can place fault on someone for doing something, they still did it. Sure, it was their environment and brain that got them there, but that is still a huge part of their identity.
The whole no one is responsible argument is terrible. In our heads we are obviously making decisions. The process to get there being formulaic or somehow freely formed from our above materialistic minds doesn't matter on the end result and practical implications.
In that form of determinism (which ends up making more sense anyways), free will still exists.
Harris is technically right about free will, but I take a more Denettian view of it. There is no sense that matters in which we do not have free will, even though in some philosophical thought experiment if we ran back the clock on the world it would unfold exactly the same every time - this scenario is not relevant to anything.
Quantum indeterminacy of course offers no real hope of free will either. As William James said
"If a 'free' act be a sheer novelty, that comes not from me, the previous me, but ex nihilo, and simply tacks itself on to me, how can I, the previous I, be responsible? How can I have any permanent character that will stand still long enough for praise or blame to be awarded?"
people also fail to realize that even if they believe events are completely random, that equates to no free will
if everything is random you have no control over your actions.
Anyway, when the continents drift, or when mountains form, or when stars explode, does anyone say that's free will? No, they accept that it was brought from a series of past events. They place too much emphasis of life being special.
What separates us from a rock? Literally nothing except chemical reactions within our bodies. Yet, there are chemical reactions in the sun. But our chemical reactions give us fabricated thoughts and observance of stimuli so we must be so special and have complete free will right?
We're no different than anything else in the universe-- all equally worthless.
On March 10 2012 13:14 xrapture wrote: people also fail to realize that even if they believe events are completely random, that equates to no free will
if everything is random you have no control over your actions.
Anyway, when the continents drift, or when mountains form, or when stars explode, does anyone say that's free will? No, they accept that it was brought from a series of past events. They place too much emphasis of life being special.
What separates us from a rock? Literally nothing except chemical reactions within our bodies. Yet, there are chemical reactions in the sun. But our chemical reactions give us fabricated thoughts and observance of stimuli so we must be so special and have complete free will right?
We're no different than anything else in the universe-- all equally worthless.
The assumption you are making is that everything is random. You're taking an all or none stance when there is in fact grey area. Example: Poker is a game that has a random nature to it. However, the more you play, the more your skill overcomes the random nature of it. Compare the earnings between an amateur and a pro out of 1000 games. You will see a great difference.
On March 10 2012 13:14 xrapture wrote: people also fail to realize that even if they believe events are completely random, that equates to no free will
if everything is random you have no control over your actions.
Anyway, when the continents drift, or when mountains form, or when stars explode, does anyone say that's free will? No, they accept that it was brought from a series of past events. They place too much emphasis of life being special.
What separates us from a rock? Literally nothing except chemical reactions within our bodies. Yet, there are chemical reactions in the sun. But our chemical reactions give us fabricated thoughts and observance of stimuli so we must be so special and have complete free will right?
We're no different than anything else in the universe-- all equally worthless.
The assumption you are making is that everything is random. You're taking an all or none stance when there is in fact grey area. Example: Poker is a game that has a random nature to it. However, the more you play, the more your skill overcomes the random nature of it. Compare the earnings between an amateur and a pro out of 1000 games. You will see a great difference.
in discussions about quantum mechanics (and statistics and probability in general), "random" is like the most loaded word ever
On March 10 2012 13:14 xrapture wrote: people also fail to realize that even if they believe events are completely random, that equates to no free will
if everything is random you have no control over your actions.
Anyway, when the continents drift, or when mountains form, or when stars explode, does anyone say that's free will? No, they accept that it was brought from a series of past events. They place too much emphasis of life being special.
What separates us from a rock? Literally nothing except chemical reactions within our bodies. Yet, there are chemical reactions in the sun. But our chemical reactions give us fabricated thoughts and observance of stimuli so we must be so special and have complete free will right?
We're no different than anything else in the universe-- all equally worthless.
The assumption you are making is that everything is random. You're taking an all or none stance when there is in fact grey area. Example: Poker is a game that has a random nature to it. However, the more you play, the more your skill overcomes the random nature of it. Compare the earnings between an amateur and a pro out of 1000 games. You will see a great difference.
in discussions about quantum mechanics (and statistics and probability in general), "random" is like the most loaded word ever
be careful with it
Absolutely. Randomness could mean 99.9% accuracy or 0.0001% accuracy.
QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
QM is perfectly random but I'd say that our lives are more abstract in the sense that our actions are closer related to game theory. Playing a slot machine and playing poker both have random variables but have quite different probablities for winning.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
Yeah but most people don't know the scales at which this randomness operates, nor the probability distributions. I feel it's easily misconstrued. Its relations to consciousness are mostly unexplored.
Really, neuroscience/cognitivescience have more to say about how people work.
Just because we can't predict something like QM as having any underlying cause doesn't there isn't an underlying cause so it's futile to argue that it's random.
You don't need randomness for free will anyways. It follows that if there truly are random events without causes, then the universe is not deterministic. It says nothing about free will though, that can exist regardless of random events.
Also, poker is not random. That would imply the game operates on chance rather than probability, which is not the case.
On March 10 2012 13:14 xrapture wrote: people also fail to realize that even if they believe events are completely random, that equates to no free will
if everything is random you have no control over your actions.
Anyway, when the continents drift, or when mountains form, or when stars explode, does anyone say that's free will? No, they accept that it was brought from a series of past events. They place too much emphasis of life being special.
What separates us from a rock? Literally nothing except chemical reactions within our bodies. Yet, there are chemical reactions in the sun. But our chemical reactions give us fabricated thoughts and observance of stimuli so we must be so special and have complete free will right?
We're no different than anything else in the universe-- all equally worthless.
The assumption you are making is that everything is random. You're taking an all or none stance when there is in fact grey area. Example: Poker is a game that has a random nature to it. However, the more you play, the more your skill overcomes the random nature of it. Compare the earnings between an amateur and a pro out of 1000 games. You will see a great difference.
Poker is a skill based game. There is bluffing and room for human error.
slots and roulette is random, poker is not. horrible analogy.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
On March 10 2012 13:14 xrapture wrote: people also fail to realize that even if they believe events are completely random, that equates to no free will
if everything is random you have no control over your actions.
Anyway, when the continents drift, or when mountains form, or when stars explode, does anyone say that's free will? No, they accept that it was brought from a series of past events. They place too much emphasis of life being special.
What separates us from a rock? Literally nothing except chemical reactions within our bodies. Yet, there are chemical reactions in the sun. But our chemical reactions give us fabricated thoughts and observance of stimuli so we must be so special and have complete free will right?
We're no different than anything else in the universe-- all equally worthless.
The assumption you are making is that everything is random. You're taking an all or none stance when there is in fact grey area. Example: Poker is a game that has a random nature to it. However, the more you play, the more your skill overcomes the random nature of it. Compare the earnings between an amateur and a pro out of 1000 games. You will see a great difference.
Poker is a skill based game. There is bluffing and room for human error.
slots and roulette is random, poker is not. horrible analogy.
Skill as in free will? I don't need analogies when you are admitting to free will.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
How are you defining it?
An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
edit: though "should" is a dangerous word...
Elaborate on Hume's "will," please. Or I can try looking it up, idk. oh found it
But to proceed in this reconciling project with regard to the question of liberty and necessity; the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science; it will not require many words to prove, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of liberty as well as in that of necessity, and that the whole dispute, in this respect also, has been hitherto merely verbal. For what is meant by liberty, when applied to voluntary actions? We cannot surely mean that actions have so little connexion with motives, inclinations, and circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we can conclude the existence of the other. For these are plain and acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no subject of dispute.
So to have free will in my definition here would be to say that there's some metaphysical agency acting on physical conscious beings (who are otherwise governed by deterministic+probablistic laws) in order to make the decision of moving or not moving.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Because if knowing every past event in the universe will allow you to predict the immediate future there can be no such thing as free will.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
How are you defining it?
An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality.
I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist".
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
How are you defining it?
An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality.
I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist".
Where does your definition of free will get you? They're all tautologies because the logic behind most formulations are pretty simple...
I've mentioned this before, but the question of free will is a pretty waste of time question because I don't think there's much to think on the matter. Nor is it anything related to how we should act.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Because if knowing every past event in the universe will allow you to predict the immediate future there can be no such thing as free will.
We can (without certainty) say that any given event will result from a necessary cause, even if we don't know what that cause is. I fail to see how that is incompatible with the fact that I am choosing to post this rather than choosing to not post it.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Because if knowing every past event in the universe will allow you to predict the immediate future there can be no such thing as free will.
We can (without certainty) say that any given event will result from a necessary cause, even if we don't know what that cause is. I fail to see how that is incompatible with the fact that I am choosing to post this rather than choosing to not post it.
Yes but when you're using "choosing" you're referring to a perception, whereas most people who are saying free will doesn't exist are using my definition of "choice" and "free will"
On March 10 2012 14:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: the only difference i can think of between the top left and right are the definitions of "free will"
That's going to happen between the top right and bottom right, and top left and bottom right as well. Not to mention disagreements on the understanding of what a truly determined universe actually means.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
How are you defining it?
An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality.
I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist".
Where does your definition of free will get you? They're all tautologies because the logic behind most formulations are pretty simple...
I've mentioned this before, but the question of free will is a pretty waste of time question because I don't think there's much to think on the matter. Nor is it anything related to how we should act.
For one, it gets you moral responsibility. If you take a hard deterministic position and reject the fact that one can choose to act or not act, good luck trying to hold individuals accountable for their actions, good or bad.
I agree with you that it's a waste of time though because the entire determinism vs free will argument is caused by individuals who refuse to acknowledge that the two are compatible. They both argue in favor of what they hope to maintain and conclude that as a result of their position being formulated, the other position necessarily must be false when that's not the case.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
How are you defining it?
An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality.
I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist".
Where does your definition of free will get you? They're all tautologies because the logic behind most formulations are pretty simple...
I've mentioned this before, but the question of free will is a pretty waste of time question because I don't think there's much to think on the matter. Nor is it anything related to how we should act.
For one, it gets you moral responsibility. If you take a hard deterministic position and reject the fact that one can choose to act or not act, good luck trying to hold individuals accountable for their actions, good or bad.
Yes but that's not what we're saying, and that's not a natural consequence of our definition of free will not existing. My belief that my definition of free will doesn't exist doesn't logically inform how I live my life.
people generally operate on identity and emotion anyway edit: see marth753's similar misconception in the previous pages
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
On March 10 2012 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: yay semantic arguments!! wittgenstein forever!!!
* i have not read anything by wittgenstein ever, not even a fragment
I haven't either but I was lead to believe that he is similar to Kuhn who would probably be inclined to say to say that the free will vs determinism debate leading to a choice of one over the other is simply irrational and that the two are incommensurable because they both operate under entirely different paradigms of understanding
The compatibilist throws the two concepts into the same paradigm so that they can actually be compared with one another, and once they're in this paradigm it can be concluded that both exist without any contradiction.
yo why do you need paradigms though? whats the point of combining the two paradigms? what does that even mean? they operate on entirely different scales. or are you just referring to the comprehend the totality of this pseudoargument? that determinism doesn't inform day to day life? etc?
On March 10 2012 14:48 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: prty much
close thread plz
yo why do you need paradigms though? whats the point of combining the two paradigms? what does that even mean? they operate on entirely different scales
Well you're not combining the paradigms, you're just defining the terms in such a way that they exist within the same paradigm because if the two terms are being argued from two different paradigms, each concept will be the rational one to hold within the paradigm it operates under while the other will be irrational. This inevitably leads to a circular argument in which neither side is really arguing against the other yet both maintain that they've rationally shown how the other cannot be the case.
You need them because they're essentially how you come to understand anything. Without a paradigm there can be no theoretical framework and without theory, observation is meaningless.
i haven't read wittgenstein, but i think like him, in that i often view these arguments as mutual misunderstandings of key words, like "free will." he focuses on the semantics and language of it... i think
Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
Compatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
I find this post quite ironic. Your definition of "free" strikes me as completely off the mark, because you seem to be able to conclude "natural laws" => "no freedom". How strange and incomprehensible must a definition of "freedom" be if it is incompatible with the lawfulness of the natural world? Let me ask you this: Can a society be "free" or at least more "free" than another society or would you say that this is impossible because "particles obey natural laws". Imagine going to a political seminar and propose such a notion. You would be rightfully laughed off the stage. Somehow you were able to convince yourself that it all makes sense when applied to "freedom of the will", however.
In my view the only comprehensible way to think about freedom is in relevant "can do"s. In this respect there is a clear progression in freedom from stones to bugs to mice to monkey to men. Or as Dennett puts it: Freedom evolves!
I find it really odd that you seem to agree to some extent, but then say that this is "just semantics". On the contrary, proposing an incomprehensible concept and then moving on to show that "it does not exist" can only succeed at the "semantic" level of language analysis. For in order to find out whether something "really exists" by looking at the world, you first need to have a comprehensible concept which is suitable for inspection.
The concept of "free will" is not hollow nor meaningless precisely because its causes and effects can be studied and are consequential. There is certainly a lot of confusion around it and religion is maybe mainly responsible for this, since they are pushing their rather incomprehensible theological interpretations (free will as a miracle). But saying that "free will does not exist" or "is 'only' an illusion" means to compound the confusion not clearing it up.
On March 10 2012 09:35 L3gendary wrote: In no way does QM make free will possible. The wave function is still deterministic and all it does is make things more random. Randomness is really the opposite of free will, it'd be like judging whether you should kill someone based on a coin flip. Ofc QM isn't completely random in the sense that everything is equally probably. Instead it describes the probabilities of different scenarios. The human brain doesn't have the power to somehow change these probabilities.
What do you mean the waveform is deterministic? Like it always collapses the same way under the exact same conditions?
The evolution of the wavefunction is deterministic. Once it is measured it collapses to a random point and then continues evolving deterministically. If you could determine the wavefunction of the universe at any point in time you could determine it at any point in the future or past. But that wavefunction would also contain all the cases for things that weren't realized.
There are different interpretations (many worlds, copenhagen etc) of what the wavefunction really is so I'm not going go into it much further because it doesn't relate to this discussion. My point was that the probabilities themselves evolve deterministically and can't just be changed because of somebody willing it.
But there is a difference of possibility between the measured and unmeasured universe, isn't that what the double-slit experiment was about?
On March 05 2012 22:10 Skilledblob wrote: and I dont understand why someone has to bring up religion all the time. Religion is no answer, religion is an option. If some more understood this then we could stop lots of these childish religion yes/no discussions.
I agree. The sooner we stop talking about these stupid myths, the sooner they'll die.
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
It isn't wonky I just think you're confusing motive with intention. Intention is what you mean to accomplish by acting in a certain way and given that you are free to choose whether to act or not, it follows that your intentions can be free as well.
I'll grant that motive doesn't seem like something that would be free though.
@MiraMax goes into a lot more detail on why the hard determinist definition of free being presented here constantly is the wonky one.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
It isn't wonky I just think you're confusing motive with intention. Intention is what you mean to accomplish by acting in a certain way and given that you are free to choose whether to act or not, it follows that your intentions can be free as well.
I'll grant that motive doesn't seem like something that would be free though.
How are you free to choose whether you act or not?
On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote: QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
It isn't wonky I just think you're confusing motive with intention. Intention is what you mean to accomplish by acting in a certain way and given that you are free to choose whether to act or not, it follows that your intentions can be free as well.
I'll grant that motive doesn't seem like something that would be free though.
How are you free to choose whether you act or not?
Right now, in complete accordance with the casual laws of the universe (as far as we know), the option to either post this or not is completely up to me. What follows will have had to be necessity out of a result of casual laws, but that isn't incompatible with the fact that I could hypothetically have chosen otherwise or with the fact that I did in fact choose what had to have happened..
Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will.
"there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct?
And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
It isn't wonky I just think you're confusing motive with intention. Intention is what you mean to accomplish by acting in a certain way and given that you are free to choose whether to act or not, it follows that your intentions can be free as well.
I'll grant that motive doesn't seem like something that would be free though.
How are you free to choose whether you act or not?
Right now, in complete accordance with the casual laws of the universe (as far as we know), the option to either post this or not is completely up to me. What follows will have had to be necessity out of a result of casual laws, but that isn't incompatible with the fact that I could hypothetically have chosen otherwise or with the fact that I did in fact choose what had to have happened..
But you only ever do one thing. You don't need to have a choice to have options.
How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
If the intention to act in a certain way is a result of causation as you say (and which I agree with), then how is it free?
Your definition of free must be quite wonky to make it fit.
It isn't wonky I just think you're confusing motive with intention. Intention is what you mean to accomplish by acting in a certain way and given that you are free to choose whether to act or not, it follows that your intentions can be free as well.
I'll grant that motive doesn't seem like something that would be free though.
How are you free to choose whether you act or not?
Right now, in complete accordance with the casual laws of the universe (as far as we know), the option to either post this or not is completely up to me. What follows will have had to be necessity out of a result of casual laws, but that isn't incompatible with the fact that I could hypothetically have chosen otherwise or with the fact that I did in fact choose what had to have happened..
But you only ever do one thing. You don't need to have a choice to have options.
Explain how it would be a violation of the casual laws of the universe had I hypothetically chosen otherwise.
Or an even harder challenge, explain how I didn't in fact choose to make the only truly possible decision I could have made.
I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents, sadly unanswered several times. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind. However we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors was driven by and still is genes & environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of human evolution you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
On March 11 2012 01:50 archonOOid wrote: I have 4 arguments against the free will proponents, sadly unanswered several times. As we all now the universe is governed by fundamental rules and these applies to humans. More specifically, cause and effect, both in terms of our daily lives and in our biology.
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 nature was driven by our mind. However we were unaware of the fact that our ancestors was driven by and still is genes & environment.
If you think that free will was developed during the ages of human evolution you must then realize that free will could be measured. Have humans reached full free will potential, how far have dogs come and how will we determine if machines/AI have free will?
If humans had free will we would be 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 is a necessity for human life.
-Impossible to answer for sure given we still have missing knowledge on how the human mind and consciousness precisely works. Irrelevant to whether it exists or not though, us being unable to precisely pinpoint the date it originated as a mutation isn't an argument against it's existence.
-It doesn't follow that it can be measured just because it was a result of an evolutionary process (which is likely the best explanation we have right now). In assuming it could be, you're really misunderstanding evolution as a sort of progression towards a sort of "uber human" which every trait can be objectively measured as positive in all environments, which is not the case.
-Last point isn't an argument against free will either, just an acknowledgment of it's limitations. Yes we have free will, that does not mean we can choose to do the impossible, such as choose to not have a heart attack or choose to grow another kidney. We are still constrained by casual laws.
On March 10 2012 19:06 Pretty Aluminum wrote: Not sure if this has been posted, but the brilliant scientist Dr. Michio Kaku has something to say about this little argument.
For some reason normal embing doesnt work for me so I have to use this stupid method. If a mod wants to edit that out and fix it please do.
So I'm really not sure where he stands because he's all over the place in that video and concludes with some random, irrelevant fun-fact of the scientific phenomena of vision.
It seems like he endorses determinism to begin with, then rejects it in favor of free will by accepting that since there is inherent uncertainty in the universe, it must be a result of randomness (which is really surprising).
Just because there is uncertainty in the universe does not deduce that there is randomness in the universe, but if you do accept randomness as existing in the universe, it is not determined. Then, just because determinism is false does not mean free will is true. I found that to just be rhetorical dancing rather than anything related to discussion of free will at all.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
Again, the definition of free will which I used (i.e. not the compatibilists definition), is the type of free will theologians claim we have, and what most layman probably believe we have. that we're able to freely choose our actions at every moment. So this definition is not meaningless, people ascribe meaning to it.
You might not think we have this type of free will, I certainly don't, but some people do.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
Again, the definition of free will which I used (i.e. not the compatibilists definition), is the type of free will theologians claim we have, and what most layman probably believe we have. that we're able to freely choose our actions at every moment. So this definition is not meaningless, people ascribe meaning to it.
You might not think we have this type of free will, I certainly don't, but some people do.
Actually, if you look at (http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/2nd_annual_online_philoso/files/shaun_nichols.pdf), compatibilism is the most common sense and intuitive position held by most laymen (if we take laymen to be philosophically uneducated undergraduates, granted I've never read the source book in the study that he cites Philosophical Psychology), in addition to being popular among professional philosophers as well.
Theologians are of no concern to me in the sense that I wouldn't waste time arguing with anyone who tried to say that it's possible that the impossible be possible (which is essentially their definition of free will that you're arguing against) any more than I would waste time arguing with anyone who tried to tell me the earth is 6,000 years old.
I have serious doubts about the credibility of anyone to argue that free will and determinism are incompatible. Under this assumption, the only way around compatibilism is to show that the universe is in fact indetermined (while QM makes this the much more likely route, it's still impossible to know whether or not there are no causes behind it).
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down?
Religion is a plague that should've become extinct over 1 hundred years ago. Really. Just listen to Debates of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Dave silverman and you will agree...
On March 11 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote: Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down?
The problem is the same experiment can be done with a computer program instead, which we would all agree has no free will.
Let's say the computer program is given an input either 0 and 1 and gives the opposite output. So if it gets 0 it gives you a 1 and vice versa. Now you use some machine to find out which output you'll get in the future and give that as the input to the computer program. So you can see there's a contradiction here because the computer will always give you the opposite number.
This issue here is that future actions have an effect on the past which violates causality. It makes more sense to look at the world from a quantum mechanical perspective than hard determinism because it doesn't have these contradictions.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined!
If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do!
I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
*snip*
In other words, even if the world is provable deterministic, we still need to punish criminals and support goodness. We still need to develop a good moral code and follow it.
We need to do it as opposed to what? What is our other choice (if all our choices are determined)?
Do you understand now? You're still concluding that we need to act as if we had free choice, but we don't under the assumptions are you already granted (complete determinism).
Lets say I grant you (irrationally) that good and evil exits objectively in some way in a deterministic universe. How do I choose good over evil if all my choices are determined?
And then it follows if neither evil or good can be chosen, how can I myself be good or evil? Are they words which really contain meaning in a determined world? And the obvious conclusion is no, they do not hold meaning, and so we conclude that our original assumption was wrong, and that they do not exist.
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is.
You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
Well Religious people can exactly the same thing
"I can't prove that God exists, but I know that he does!"
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it, if you accept that the universe is casually determined and accept the compatibilist definition of what free will is (which I think is the intuitive and common sense definition as well), it's fairly hard to argue that the two are mutually exclusive. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
On the contrary, you can't assign blame if you reject the compatibilist notion of "free will" as actually being "free" because you're rejecting the idea that they had any choice in the matter. In order to assign blame to a person who is the final cause of a crime, you would have to assign blame to the cause of that cause, so on and so forth all the way back to the first cause (if such a thing exists which is a completely different debate) which aside from being absurd in itself, breaks from a practical perspective at the point at which uncertainty arises regarding what any given cause is, which sometimes arises as soon as the initial cause being examined.
There is a difference because while the compatibilist and hard determinist might both recognize the existence of this same behavior, the hard determinist refuses to acknowledge it as free will and so you do not get he same level of individual accountability as a hard determinist that you get as a compatibilist. It's also debatable whether every compatibilist and hard determinist would agree on the same form of casual determinism, but that's less relevant to the former point.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
Seriously, that's just some philosophical mumbo jumbo. Your definiton of free will does not make any sense whatsoever. It's neither free (because you have no influence on it) nor is it will (because there's no such moment/time when you're truly making a decision as an agent).
Making a decision is a physical process (on the most fundamental level). You can't choose to do anything independent of it. It's as absurd as saying it's one's choice that his nails grow...
You choose what to do, so you have free will , and I read the entire post, even quantum physic will never be able to prove that free will is non-existant, and dont say I am an ignoramus, I am a science student. Peace.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
These are contradictions.
Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction.
I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all.
On March 11 2012 05:23 maybenexttime wrote: Seriously, that's just some philosophical mumbo jumbo. Your definiton of free will does not make any sense whatsoever. It's neither free (because you have no influence on it) nor is it will (because there's no such moment/time when you're truly making a decision as an agent).
Making a decision is a physical process (on the most fundamental level). You can't choose to do anything independent of it. It's as absurd as saying it's one's choice that his nails grow...
It makes perfect sense, whether you choose to accept it or not is your choice. I don't see how you would accept the alternative absurd definition of it over this one though. You do have an influence on it (so it is free) and you are making a decision as an agent (so it is will).
Never did I deny that it was independent of physical process and that's not the compatibilist position. You're mistaking compatibilism with indeterminism here.
And how do you have an influence on it? You can't act independent of the universe and physical processes that constitute your mind, conciousness and decisions. There's no freedom in being a passive result of natural phenomenons (either deterministic or random, doesn't matter). You're not an agent the same way a river is not an agent and does not choose to flow a certain path...
I'm not mistaking anything for anything. Your definition is self-contradictory and absurd. You're making up meaningless definitions to suit your point of view. You're claiming that a mental process that's entirely a result of physical phenomenons can be labled as choice, and free at that, despite there being no opportunity for the supposed agent to make any sort of choice. You could say there's choice involved (although that's already stretching it), but there's no will, because will assumes independence from the physical world.
You're essentially saying that a river has free will too. You're saying that a river is making a decision to flow a certain path (and don't tell me this is a straw man, because a human being is no different from a river, other than the fact that it's a more complicated collection of particles).
On March 10 2012 15:26 L3gendary wrote: Compatibilism is just logically flawed. Determinism doesn't preclude the existence of a consciousness that can weigh options and make decisions on how to act. Free will would necessarily have to be non-deterministic and outside of the laws of nature because were it within the laws of nature it would have to act according to them and therefore isn't free.
Essentially, you are defining free will as having the ability to be determined by immediate internal causes (your brain) and not external causes (someone else forces you to). No determinist would argue against that, your brain is still operating deterministically though, so your position is no different than determinism.
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
These are contradictions.
Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction.
I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all.
No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking.
On March 11 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote: Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down?
The problem is the same experiment can be done with a computer program instead, which we would all agree has no free will.
Let's say the computer program is given an input either 0 and 1 and gives the opposite output. So if it gets 0 it gives you a 1 and vice versa. Now you use some machine to find out which output you'll get in the future and give that as the input to the computer program. So you can see there's a contradiction here because the computer will always give you the opposite number.
This issue here is that future actions have an effect on the past which violates causality. It makes more sense to look at the world from a quantum mechanical perspective than hard determinism because it doesn't have these contradictions.
True, you can write a computer program that gives a predetermined output in response to an input. However, you can't then expand that program to analyze it's own code and return the output it is not supposed to return, because any output is what the code tells the program to return.
The thought experiment I put forward relies quite heavily on the future being predetermined and determinable in advance. I would argue that if there is some unpredictable phenomenon affecting human decision making, you can call that free will.
On March 11 2012 06:16 maybenexttime wrote: And how do you have an influence on it? You can't act independent of the universe and physical processes that constitute your mind, conciousness and decisions. There's no freedom in being a passive result of natural phenomenons (either deterministic or random, doesn't matter). You're not an agent the same way a river is not an agent and does not choose to flow a certain path...
I'm not mistaking anything for anything. Your definition is self-contradictory and absurd. You're making up meaningless definitions to suit your point of view. You're claiming that a mental process that's entirely a result of physical phenomenons can be labled as choice, and free at that, despite there being no opportunity for the supposed agent to make any sort of choice. You could say there's choice involved (although that's already stretching it), but there's no will, because will assumes independence from the physical world.
You're essentially saying that a river has free will too. You're saying that a river is making a decision to flow a certain path (and don't tell me this is a straw man, because a human being is no different from a river, other than the fact that it's a more complicated collection of particles).
There is freedom, even in a casually determined universe, the two are not mutually exclusive and if you go back and read the past few pages I've tried to explain in my own words, alternatively you could do some research on the popular compatibilist arguments. The fact that you've compared humans to rivers as having the same level of agency is enough to show that you have a clear misunderstanding of what that word even means to begin with.
You are definitely mistaking the compatibilist definition of free will with the incompatibilist definition of free will because that's the definition that is absurd and meaningless (as I've explained numerous times and no one has really disputed the fact that it is in fact problematic), not to mention redundant and circular.
I'll even bold your misunderstanding of the compatibilist argument since you seem to be under the impression that you aren't making any. Given that you falsely understand the bold to be true, I can see why you would think there would be an inherent contradiction with the former statement of that sentence, however in the bold lies the source of your misunderstanding. Another misunderstanding is in your notion that will somehow has to be independent of the physical world (as if I anywhere claimed to be or used arguments related to dualism or transcendence of reality at all).
Once again, it's sad that I have to point this out but I'm not making up meaningless definitions, compatibilism has been a widely popular (albeit disputed) solution to the free will vs determinism debate for centuries.
If you honestly think a river has sentience like human being, then I really doubt I'll be able to convince you that we do in fact have free will and you most likely won't be able to convince me that rivers have sentience like human beings. It is a straw man regardless of whether you'll admit it or not because you're operating on the assumption that I agree with your notion of living, sentient rivers capable of making decisions. In saying my argument forces me into saying rivers have free will ,something obviously absurd that I never claimed, you are misrepresenting my argument (strawman QED).
On March 11 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote: Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down?
The problem is the same experiment can be done with a computer program instead, which we would all agree has no free will.
Let's say the computer program is given an input either 0 and 1 and gives the opposite output. So if it gets 0 it gives you a 1 and vice versa. Now you use some machine to find out which output you'll get in the future and give that as the input to the computer program. So you can see there's a contradiction here because the computer will always give you the opposite number.
This issue here is that future actions have an effect on the past which violates causality. It makes more sense to look at the world from a quantum mechanical perspective than hard determinism because it doesn't have these contradictions.
True, you can write a computer program that gives a predetermined output in response to an input. However, you can't then expand that program to analyze it's own code and return the output it is not supposed to return, because any output is what the code tells the program to return.
The thought experiment I put forward relies quite heavily on the future being predetermined. I would argue that if there is some unpredictable phenomenon affecting human decision making, you can call that free will.
Sorry for the confusion but I didn't mean the computer program was the same machine as the one that could determine the future. Let's say there was a machine that could determine the future and then there's a completely different machine that only runs this piece of code I talked about. So it takes the output of the first machine and inputs it to the 2nd machine and reverses the number.
On March 11 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote: Here's a thought experiment; let's presume universe has no free will. Let's further presume a machine that can gather enough data to tell the future for about a minute ahead.
Put two cards, let's say an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face up on a table in front of a contrarian or a free will proponent, use the machine to foretell which they'll pick, tell them the result and then ask them to pick either card. Just how will this go down?
it is a paradox because you cannot have a machine process the reactions of something that has more moving parts than the machine has switches (0-1 binary switches)
so the situation you describe cannot exist for that reason, hence its paradoxical nature
You're using the wrong definition of free will for a compatibilist so it's obviously going to be logically flawed when you attack the wrong argument. The meaningless definition obviously can't exist because it requires a violation of the law of physics, aka it requires the impossible be possible (within a deterministic framework, which is something that we all have good reason to accept).
The compatibilist definition of free will is more common sense than the above one because that one is meaningless, why bother using a meaningless word? That's the entire point of this definition because the whole argument is just one of verbal meanings which both sides disagree on. Of course no determinist would argue with it because it's common sense and brings the two ideas, both of which are naturally intuitive, together in a perfectly logical argument.
It's very different from the deterministic position because it doesn't have to deal with the problems that arise from saying "free will doesn't exist" or bother wasting time in circular arguments that never lead anywhere. However, if you'd rather have circular arguments on whether free will exists or not and lose individual responsibility for actions, feel free (or not?) to continue using the silly, nonsensical definition of free will
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
These are contradictions.
Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction.
I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all.
No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking.
I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not".
Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined.
This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best a probabilistic understanding. Problem of induction in a nutshell.
calm down, if you have good arguments you wont need to force others to acknowledge your points.
I think the main problem is:
Does a configuration of the aggregation of variables in the universe (conditions) which have a relation to the subject 'pre'determine its actions (change of conditions) or vice versa.
Thats why I think the 'chicken and egg' paradox fits well, what was first, the 'change of conditions' or the 'conditions' itselves which lead to a 'change of conditions'?
No your definition of free will is meaningless because it isn't really free at all. You've just redefined the word and are arguing semantics. It doesn't reconcile anything. It would be like if i say my definition of free will is an apple and apples exist therefore free will exists.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
These are contradictions.
Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction.
I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all.
No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking.
I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not".
Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined.
This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best probabilistic. Problem of induction in a nutshell.
But the probability of it occurring otherwise is inherently 0 in the classical deterministic sense. The fundamental laws of classical physics do not describe "actions" but trajectories that obey conservation of momentum and energy. So every thing that exists within the universe follows a continuous path outlined by these laws. In more complex systems like robots or animals or people its not as simple as a ball going through the air but a result of electrical motion. To suggest other possibilities is to suggest that one or more particles took a different path than it should have according to laws of physics. This is why the probability of these hypotheticals is exactly 0 with this world view.
It is only non-zero in quantum mechanics but QM but doesn't allow for local hidden variables. So it could not depend on anything including someone's will, and in fact would mean that people are partially at the mercy of these "dice rolls".
On March 11 2012 07:00 BillClinton wrote: calm down, if you have good arguments you wont need to force others to acknowledge your points.
I think the main problem is:
Does a configuration of the aggregation of variables in the universe (conditions) which have a relation to the subject 'pre'determine its actions (change of conditions) or vice versa.
Thats why I think the 'chicken and egg' paradox fits well, what was first, the 'change of conditions' or the 'conditions' itselves which lead to a 'change of conditions'?
I think that point is actually a great way to discern between the two notions of deterministic causation in the universe.
I always find it interesting how athiests attribute so many godlike qualities to the universe, such as the laws of physics and the randomness OP talks about. Makes me wonder who really believes what sometimes...
On March 11 2012 07:47 Forester wrote: I always find it interesting how athiests attribute so many godlike qualities to the universe, such as the laws of physics and the randomness OP talks about. Makes me wonder who really believes what sometimes...
Can you elaborate on what those godlike attributes are and how they are applied to the universe by atheists?
edit To clarify: Since you find it interesting and it's somewhat related to free will we can discuss how opinions tend to form if you can be more specific in what you meant.
Actually, I've already explained how your definition is inherently meaningless and you've still done nothing to explain how it isn't. Your straw man apple argument is actually more like your definition than mine because it necessarily follows that if you define free will as making the possible impossible, then it follows that free will is a necessary contradiction and false. It's a circular argument, just like your apple example. Defining free will as the "ability to act or not to act" does not imply existence in the definition like yours implies nonexistence in it's definition.
The compatibilist definition is still free because it still allows individuals to be held personally accountable for their actions, it does reconcile individual responsibility and liberty of choice with a casually determined universe. I haven't redefined the word at all, this notion of "free will" has been around for at least 300 years so it really isn't anything new, it's just a clarification of terms (which is absolutely necessary if you want to talk about any problem at all). Semantics is important because the entire free will vs determinism debate is caused by semantics.
TL;DR: In fighting this intuitively common sense notion of free will and asserting that it isn't actually free will, you're the one arguing semantics.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
These are contradictions.
Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction.
I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all.
No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking.
I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not".
Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined.
This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best probabilistic. Problem of induction in a nutshell.
But the probability of it occurring otherwise is inherently 0 in the classical deterministic sense. The fundamental laws of classical physics do not describe "actions" but trajectories that obey conservation of momentum and energy. So every thing that exists within the universe follows a continuous path outlined by these laws. In more complex systems like robots or animals or people its not as simple as a ball going through the air but a result of electrical motion. To suggest other possibilities is to suggest that one or more particles took a different path than it should have according to laws of physics. This is why the probability of these hypotheticals is exactly 0 with this world view.
That rests on the assumption that the motion of every single atom in our body will directly influence its meta-behavior and actions of the self as a whole such as leading to one throwing the ball instead of not throwing it. It's similar to the butterfly effect except, but it's merely a possibility that a small event in initial conditions can have major consequences, not a necessity.
As a hypothetical example, perhaps the flap of a butterflies wings could in fact lead to a tsunami across the world at a later time, but it is not a necessity that every single flap of every butterflies wings will cause a tsunami across the world. Likewise, just because every single particle acts according to the laws of physics within our body doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothetical probability of alternate events occurring in reality such as not throwing the ball would have necessarily have also been 0. Also, (perhaps this is related, perhaps not) keep in mind that our current understanding of physics is not absolute.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
Can someone clarify?
There's another reason to believe in free will.
If man is not allowed to make his own actions, and is governed by his DNA, the way he was raised, and the laws of physics, then there's nothing left up to "him" to decide. In that scenario, a "man" is no longer in control of his body, and is thus not responsible for his actions.
If free will doesn't exist then a murderer is not guilty of a crime because he didn't chose to commit it. He is guilty of having the DNA to be capable of murder and the nurtured instinct to murder. So why is he punished for conditions outside of his control?
If I am just a product of my environment, then why isn't my environment responsible for my actions? and on that same thought, why would my parents or society be responsible for their actions? Didn't they just do as they are programmed to do via DNA, their upbringing, and their limits within the laws of physics?
Why should I feel proud of my achievements if they were destined to me from the get go? or why should I feel ashamed of my failures? After all, it's not my fault they happened.
At some level you have to agree that we have access to the decisions we make, otherwise we're not responsible for them, and we should be able to do what we want, when we want it, without fear of repercussions.
Voltaire once wrote that, "If god didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him." I feel the same argument should be applied to Free will as well.
I still fail to understand how it is free you need to explain this further. If you have a casually determined universe then you could not have acted otherwise so where does the free part of free will come from? Assigning responsibility and accountability for actions is not different than the position of a hard determinist. Just because you could not have acted otherwise doesn't mean you can't assign blame. A person can be the cause of an event and therefore blame worthy. They are not the first cause though and their own actions are caused by other things.
There is really no difference between compatibilism and hard determinism. You are simply using different definitions. To clarify:
If your definition of free will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals (taken from wikipedia). Then both you and hard determinists agree it exists.
If you definition of free will is: a metaphysical entity that allows an individual to make free decisions and not bound by laws of physics. Then both you and hard determinists agree it doesn't exist.
Both positions are identical but 1 group is using 1 definition and the other group is using another.
I don't know how else to explain it. Just because what happens, happens necessarily, does not mean that an individual did not freely choose what came about.
If it happens necessarily then how could the individual choose otherwise? No one is doubting the existence of consciousness and the ability to weigh decisions and make a choice. The question is ultimately whether the decision making process is a product of natural laws of motion and hence deterministic or not.
The distinction is that just because it is the case that you couldn't have ultimately chosen otherwise, it does not follow that you did not freely choose the only truly possible decision you could have made. It's easily feasible that you could have hypothetically chosen otherwise, the choice to act or not to act still resides within an individual, it just so happens that whatever is chosen was necessarily chosen.
These are contradictions.
Something actually not being the case but hypothetically being so is in no way a contradiction.
I didn't actually post about puppies here but I hypothetically could have. No contradiction at all.
No but that's it you could not have. Let's say a ball went into a net. You could entertain the idea that it had not, that is it hypothetically missed. But if you examine it on a fundamental level you find it could not have done otherwise without violating laws of physics. In much the same way you had no actual choice of what to post when examined on a fundamental level. Hypotheticals only come into play when we ignore laws of physics and talk about wishful thinking.
I "actually" could not have, even though the hypothetical possibility still remains. A better example would be one that actually involves an action, such as choosing to throw the ball into the net or not choosing to throw the ball into the net. Our understanding of causation is not certain knowledge, it's probabilistic knowledge. In predicting before the moment in time where one decides whether or not to throw the ball into the net, the best we can say is "there is X probability they will throw it into the net and 1-X probability that they will not".
Once the act is done, it can be hypothetically considered how it could have been otherwise (due to the inherent probability of it occurring having been greater than 0 within our framework of understanding), yet we can also say that it actually could not have been otherwise. A choice is still being made, it just so happens that the choice made will be in accordance with what was determined.
This "fundamental level" you suggest we are capable of examining from is entirely hypothetical as well because we have no certain understanding of the actual causation of what led me to post rather than not post, it is at best probabilistic. Problem of induction in a nutshell.
But the probability of it occurring otherwise is inherently 0 in the classical deterministic sense. The fundamental laws of classical physics do not describe "actions" but trajectories that obey conservation of momentum and energy. So every thing that exists within the universe follows a continuous path outlined by these laws. In more complex systems like robots or animals or people its not as simple as a ball going through the air but a result of electrical motion. To suggest other possibilities is to suggest that one or more particles took a different path than it should have according to laws of physics. This is why the probability of these hypotheticals is exactly 0 with this world view.
That rests on the assumption that the motion of every single atom in our body will directly influence its meta-behavior and actions of the self as a whole such as leading to one throwing the ball instead of not throwing it. It's similar to the butterfly effect except, but it's merely a possibility that a small event in initial conditions can have major consequences, not a necessity.
As a hypothetical example, perhaps the flap of a butterflies wings could in fact lead to a tsunami across the world at a later time, but it is not a necessity that every single flap of every butterflies wings will cause a tsunami across the world. Likewise, just because every single particle acts according to the laws of physics within our body doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothetical probability of alternate events occurring in reality such as not throwing the ball would have necessarily have also been 0. Also, (perhaps this is related, perhaps not) keep in mind that our current understanding of physics is not absolute.
The butterfly effect (chaos theory) is deterministic. So a certain set of initial condition will lead to the same effect even a chaotic one, it cannot lead to multiple things. You can't speak about every butterfly's flapping their wings at any time. Each of those instances involve different conditions. The butterflies are in different positions, at different times, they flap their wings at different angles and elevation and at different strength and so on and so on. These are all different initial conditions.
I think you're confusing the difference between determinism and predictability. Just because we lack the ability to track every particle in the universe doesn't mean they dont follow these laws of motion (again strictly speaking about classical physics). That is more a limit on our instruments than our understanding.
yeah i'm still on l3gendary's side, your definition of free will has no "free," ggtemplar. you seem to be referring to the perception of choice and nothing else
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is.
You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
how is that any different from believing in a religion and thinking your not in control but god is?
On March 05 2012 21:48 Timmsh wrote: @ Skilledblob It's not your decision to move, at least not in the way you say it is. We talk about it as if it is our decision, but the 'decision' to move starts in the brain, and it is a reaction on something which makes you move. Ofcourse there can be internall reasons to make yourself move, but it's not a decision by 'you' (as the overlord controlling the body), merely it's simply cause and effect. Which causes and which effects is hard to determine, but it's there.
you argue like a priest. "I dont know why it is this way but it has to be this way!" because of XYZ uncontrollable power
Sorry dude but you missed the point, I said i don't know the cause, but i do know there is a cause! Which is the most important thing in this discussion, because if you know there is a cause to your decisions, you cannot believe in an 'external controller' you say it is.
You said, it's my decision to move, as if you are external of this universe and just control your body. I only said that's not true, and the universe has influence on your decisions in such a way, you only THINK your in controll.
how is that any different from believing in a religion and thinking your not in control but god is?
a lot of religions believe their gods have wills and disobeyable rules and such; the laws of physics operate in no such way.
I feel bad if these things have already been mentioned in this thread, I just read the topic and the first post and then posts on this last page but...
First note: if you haven't read the works between st augustine and spinoza I highly suggest checking them out as they both try to make valid points on whether free will exists or doesn't exist.
Second note: there's a great article in the Ny times that came out maybe 2 years ago (do we have free will: yes it's the only choice just do a google search for it) that explains some of the moral issues that people are confronted with and whether or not some decisions are made with free will or not.
Third note: Every cognitive science in the world, EXCLUDING physics (specifically quantum physics) has found some level of proof that proves that the universe is deterministic, everything happens for a reason which can in effect be predicted based on certain facts. Quantum physics on the other hand has a particular facet of it that specifies in the study of probability and events at the subatomic level. As such a good way to describe it would be: things are most likely to occur one way but... maybe they don't some times.
Finally, I tend to gravitate towards there being some level of free will, but it's kind of a mix. It just makes more sense that way from the things I've read and the opinions I've made as such.
On March 10 2012 14:16 Warillions wrote: god is fake. free will is fake. we are all programmed variants of nature.
Your argumentation seems to me as good as: "God is the almighty creator, free will exists because god gave it to us, we are the top of the nature because we have souls and go to heaven".
On March 11 2012 09:22 Mente wrote: Third note: Every cognitive science in the world, EXCLUDING physics (specifically quantum physics) attempt to prove that the universe is deterministic, everything happens for a reason which can in effect be predicted based on certain facts. Quantum physics on the other hand is the study of probability and as such attempts to explain that things are most likely to occur one way but... maybe they don't some times.
such bold statements about cognitive science and physics. quantum physics is not the study of probability, it's the study of the very small. probability waves are just one of QM's many tools to describe how very small things work.
and i'd be surprised if you could find me a cognitive scientist who claims the field is attempting to prove that the universe is deterministic.
Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena where the action is of the order of Planck constant; quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the atomic and subatomic scales, the so-called quantum realm. It provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. In advanced topics of quantum mechanics, some of these behaviors are macroscopic and only emerge at very low or very high energies or temperatures. The name "quantum mechanics" derives from the observation that some physical quantities can change only by discrete amounts, or quanta in Latin. For example, the angular momentum of an electron bound to an atom or molecule is quantized.[1] In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave–particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons, electrons and other atomic-scale objects.
The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function called the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Mathematical manipulations of the wavefunction usually involve the bra-ket notation, which requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear functionals. The wavefunction treats the object as a quantum harmonic oscillator and the mathematics is akin to that of acoustic resonance. Many of the results of quantum mechanics are not easily visualized in terms of classical mechanics; for instance, the ground state in the quantum mechanical model is a non-zero energy state that is the lowest permitted energy state of a system, rather than a more traditional system that is thought of as simply being at rest with zero kinetic energy. Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities, according to John Wheeler.
The earliest versions of quantum mechanics were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century. At around the same time, the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light (as updated by Einstein) first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as quantum theories of matter and electromagnetic radiation. The early quantum theory was significantly reformulated in the mid-1920s by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and their associates, and the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr became widely accepted. By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, with a greater emphasis placed on measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics has since branched out into almost every aspect of 20th century physics and other disciplines such as quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics and quantum information science. Much 19th century physics has been re-evaluated as the classical limit of quantum mechanics, and its more advanced developments in terms of quantum field theory, string theory, and speculative quantum gravity theories.
On March 11 2012 09:22 Mente wrote: Third note: Every cognitive science in the world, EXCLUDING physics (specifically quantum physics) attempt to prove that the universe is deterministic, everything happens for a reason which can in effect be predicted based on certain facts. Quantum physics on the other hand is the study of probability and as such attempts to explain that things are most likely to occur one way but... maybe they don't some times.
such bold statements about cognitive science and physics. quantum physics is not the study of probability, it's the study of the very small. probability waves are just one of QM's many tools to describe how very small things work.
and i'd be surprised if you could find me a cognitive scientist who claims the field is attempting to prove that the universe is deterministic.
Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena where the action is of the order of Planck constant; quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the atomic and subatomic scales, the so-called quantum realm. It provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. In advanced topics of quantum mechanics, some of these behaviors are macroscopic and only emerge at very low or very high energies or temperatures. The name "quantum mechanics" derives from the observation that some physical quantities can change only by discrete amounts, or quanta in Latin. For example, the angular momentum of an electron bound to an atom or molecule is quantized.[1] In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave–particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons, electrons and other atomic-scale objects.
The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function called the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Mathematical manipulations of the wavefunction usually involve the bra-ket notation, which requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear functionals. The wavefunction treats the object as a quantum harmonic oscillator and the mathematics is akin to that of acoustic resonance. Many of the results of quantum mechanics are not easily visualized in terms of classical mechanics; for instance, the ground state in the quantum mechanical model is a non-zero energy state that is the lowest permitted energy state of a system, rather than a more traditional system that is thought of as simply being at rest with zero kinetic energy. Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities, according to John Wheeler.
The earliest versions of quantum mechanics were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century. At around the same time, the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light (as updated by Einstein) first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as quantum theories of matter and electromagnetic radiation. The early quantum theory was significantly reformulated in the mid-1920s by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and their associates, and the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr became widely accepted. By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, with a greater emphasis placed on measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics has since branched out into almost every aspect of 20th century physics and other disciplines such as quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics and quantum information science. Much 19th century physics has been re-evaluated as the classical limit of quantum mechanics, and its more advanced developments in terms of quantum field theory, string theory, and speculative quantum gravity theories.
you calling THIS probability?
Let me rephrase, there are many instances in cognitive sciences that can be translated into proving the existence (or lack there of) of free will. There whole goal isn't to disprove it. Sorry if I worded it funny; I wrote it in a hurry as I had a grill to watch.
And, Bro, I'm calling one facet of quantum mechanics that.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
You're thinking about things on too much of a molucular level. Whens the last time that you went into a groecry store and thought to yourself that you have no free will of choice of what you buy due to you being limited by the nature of the physics of particles in the universe......Free will does exist on a morality level and even on a decision based level as it has been shown that there are randomness in cells that do allow for some free will in cells to be present if you want to take it all to a molecular level.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
I'm not sure who originally said the above statement (taken from OP) - if it was the OP, you're wrong. If it was Sam Harris, he's wrong.
Free will is something that cannot be quantified or explained by the laws of science, any more than the concepts of right and wrong can be explained by science. Saying that "the laws of physics determine everything in the universe" is just a bunch of lame hand-waving that's not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. We can definitely explain some of the phenomena that we experience and observe with science, but certainly not everything (gravity, anyone?). Oftentimes people incorrectly refer to a bunch of untested, unprovable hypotheses as "science", when they really shouldn't...I think Harris's claims qualify as untested, unprovable hypotheses, sort of like his own made-up religion.
And by the way, it's incorrect to say that Quantum Mechanics is about "intrinsic randomness" - QM is largely about probability densities and distributions...in other words, if there is randomness in QM, we wouldn't know about it. We would only be able to slap a probability on a given event/occurrence, and leave it at that. Saying anything more than that is forbidden by QM in general, and by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, specifically.
I believe we all have God-given free will...and I snicker to think about how one might live WITHOUT free will. You would never be responsible for your actions - wouldn't that be great? You could murder, rape, steal, and cheat to your heart's content...but it would never be your "fault" because you have no free will, right? It wasn't "you", per se, that did anything...it was quantum mechanics.....?
I believe we all have God-given free will...and I snicker to think about how one might live WITHOUT free will. You would never be responsible for your actions - wouldn't that be great? You could murder, rape, steal, and cheat to your heart's content...but it would never be your "fault" because you have no free will, right? It wasn't "you", per se, that did anything...it was quantum mechanics.....?
this argument has come up multiple times and it seems to be rooted in a different definition of free will. lemme find my previous response to copypaste...
On March 09 2012 20:21 Marth753 wrote: The problem I see in this argument is that, if you're proposing that there is no free will in the universe, then we should never punish anyone ever for anything they do because it wasn't their choice to act that way. Did Hitler, Charles Manson, and (insert any murderer here) kill someone? Well who cares, because he had no free will to do so. Just like a man lead around like a marionette they should not be held accountable for their actions because they did not act out of their free will.
Yes, some decisions are made reflexively and that's not really operating out of your free will because then it really is the reactions of a bunch of atoms. For any other animal you'd be right in saying they have no (or at least rarely have) free will because they function on a more mechanical level, but ideas and memories and choices aren't just matter, they're something else on a less understood level.
This argument always comes up and let me summarize why it's false.
First off we punish people for their actions and their intent. None of this changes without free will it just means that intent is formed through experience. For example some guy's wife cheats on him and he goes out and kills the other guy. Not everyone will have that reaction and it depends on the individual personality and their past experience even something like hormone level and things like that but all these things come together to form the intent. It's still cause and effect, it doesn't prevent people from making decisions it just means those decisions are determined by the past.
Look at another scenario: some robot goes around and kills people. You still "punish" the robot even if you agree it had no free will in it's decisions. People can change if you punish them, therefore most/all crimes are not punished by death but seek to rehabilitate the person. Again this is cause (punish/rehab) and effect (less likely to commit crime).
Memories are just past experiences and are stored in the brain in neurons that carry the information electrically and chemically. Ideas are synthesis of memories. Saying "they are less understood" doesn't imply free will somehow.
But this doesn't change the fact that this excuses them from everything they did before hand. Under this logic, just to take this to the extreme to show how it's flawed, Hitler did nothing wrong but was simply educated incorrectly and should have been rehabilitated. Under this logic, Hitler was forced to kill millions of Jews by all of his experiences and memories which were, by extension, forced upon him. Under this logic once again, Hitler was just a poor soul forced to kill millions of Jews who we should have reached out to and helped.
If the only reason to punish someone is to rehabilitate them, then let's assume something. There are two ways to fix Hitler from killing millions of Jews ever again: therapeutic care in some tropical paradise that relieves Hitler of his hatred and is simultaneously enjoyable, or send him to jail and show him just how bad his actions were. If you're assuming that all we should do is rehabilitate people then either option is perfectly fine because they fix Hitler from killing again, and yet the whole world would be appalled if you went with the first option because that is not what he deserves. Most people would admit that the second option is appropriate because that is what Hitler deserves for killing 6 million people. And why? Because he consciously made the choice to do something so horrible that it cannot be justified.
Hitler wasn't "forced" to do anything because that implies that it is happening against his will, but it IS his will. Hitler did something VERY wrong, he WAS simply educated/experienced incorrectly and yes, if it could happen he should be rehabilitated. Just because you can't stomach it doesn't mean it's flawed.
Can you clarify this statement? Because it sounds like you acknowledged that he has free will to choose what to do and that to kill 6 million people was his will so he chose it.
Anyways, to say that we should send Hitler to his favorite paradise island to be rehabilitated would be to reward incorrect behavior. If we reward incorrect behavior, even if it rehabilitates the criminal, then we prompt a whole bunch of people to act in whatever way gets them to paradise island themselves.
you're still making a false connection between the lack of free will and a lack of responsibility. people will do to someone who acts like hitler what people tend to do to what someone acts like hitler. there will be plenty of people who condone harsh punishment, just as there are plenty of people who don't. their reasons don't necessarily have free will behind them either. the agency with power in the scenario (usually some kind of government organization) will ultimately make the decision, which doesn't necessarily require free will either.
the possibility of rehabilitating people is still independent of the possibility of free will, one cannot make an argument for the other.
How can you be punished for something you never chose to do? If we assume a deterministic universe and it's determined that I'm a murderer, then I have no choice, I was established as a murderer before I was ever born and so I have no chance to escape this fate; at some point I will murder some particular person and do not have the choice to do otherwise. Furthermore everything that happens to me previously was determined for me, every choice I make will be determined for me as this is basically the definition of a deterministic universe.
As for the relevance of all of the rehabilitation talk, the point is that if we consign ourselves to a universe where we have no free will, then we excuse people of all blame for whatever they do because what they did was not their will, whether that means something else's will was thrust upon them or there is no such thing as a conscious choice at all. Not only is this extremely counter-intuitive, but it means we must justify every murder and say that murderers are just misguided individuals who we must help by whatever means necessary because they are victims of a plague (wrong ideas) who don't deserve harsh punishment. But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses.
No, we don't excuse someone for killing someone because they were going to do it anyway. Please stop making that leap in logic. It doesn't follow logically. Watch or read Minority Report if you have to LOL
In response to the video you edited in: a probablistic quantum universe still doesn't necessarily contain free will. It could be probablistic, and if you did multiple instances of the big bang, it might turn out different every time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a free will component to how the creatures in the universe act.
This doesn't really seem to matter; he seems to think assigning blame to people for doing deterministic things is a choice we have. If we happen to justify murder based on our realization of a deterministic universe, that choice was determined prior. If we choose to continue rehabilitation and such, that was also predetermined.
"But if we justify horrible actions and help them then there's no longer any reason for people not to do horrible things which would just lead to more crime and violence. If this is true, then society collapses."
This scenario assumes free will, which in the beginning of your hypothetical doesn't exist. If the universe were deterministic then the future is already set. Our realization of and reaction to existing determinism is set in stone just like this conversation was. If the universe is deterministic then there are no choices we can make to improve\hurt society because by definition we do not have the free will to do so, we are moving along a set path.
tl;dr Saying our acceptance of deterministic reality is bad and should be avoided assumes we have a choice in the matter (free will)
the existence or lack of existence of free will as defined by us SHOULD NOT inform any moral truths nor any action on a human scale
my morality comes from an ingrained (by my experiences) understanding of what to consider positive and negative. if i didn't have free will, i'd still have this understanding, and i'd still act on it mostly consistently. even if everyone didn't have free will, that doesn't stop them from punishing people who do bad things, because the deterministic universe says they should, they're part of societies that all have similar understandings of morality
another point i made earlier:
You seem to think law enforcement is about fairness, and what is right. That's wrong. Law enforcement is always about advancing the will of a group of people, and what they think should be done to people who choose to disrupt their society. Fairness/overarchingmorality isn't the basis (though some groups attempt to use morality as a basis, it still ultimately comes down to creating a list of crimes and punishments).
Guilt is defined by consequence (A killed B, minimum for manslaughter), and in a few cases, intent (A planned to kill B, minimum for murder 2), but intent is still an empirically observable aspect of a crime (often inferred, but still observable), whereas free will is nothing of the sort. Guilt, as defined by most powers that define it, is independent of the existence of free will
And by the way, it's incorrect to say that Quantum Mechanics is about "intrinsic randomness" - QM is largely about probability densities and distributions...in other words, if there is randomness in QM, we wouldn't know about it. We would only be able to slap a probability on a given event/occurrence, and leave it at that. Saying anything more than that is forbidden by QM in general, and by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, specifically.
I think your understanding of QM is kind of incomplete... we can collapse known probability wavefunctions over and over again and check that they conform to the distribution that we calculated them to be, so that's a confirmation of probabilistic determinism right there...
which state they collapse into is still "random" on a single-trial level, but the sum of the trials still conform to the distribution
i.e. in a hypothetical scenario where your decision to pick chocolate or vanilla ice cream depended on a superposition of probability waves (i know consciousness and brains dont work this way, shut up cogsci assholes), and we hypothetically knew the relevant functions, we'd know the probability of picking chocolate or vanilla, and the process by which one is chosen is still deterministic (has to be one of the two at some % chance, though obv we couldnt do multiple trials here). the fact that the choice was chocolate or vanilla was the environmental factor... now replace that decision with every decision made ever, even nonbinary ones, and you have no free will. your perception of debating the options is deterministic, just as the ultimate decision is
My personal definition of free will is the ability to make a choice. If the electrons in your brain influence you to lean more towards one alternative than another when choosing, and you are able to choose that alternative, i define that as free will.
Obviously there is not "true" free will in a sence that thoughts are actually eletric impulses that look different for each of us, the way these electric impulses behave changes depending on what we have experienced in life. But if this was the true definition for free will, we wouldn't care wether or not our will came true. Because if that is the case, whatever happens to you in life IS actually a result of your free will, since ultimately the way particles behave have made you end up here. There is no errors, in the giant formula that is life, it was always meant to happen since the math is never wrong.
Look, the wisdom behind the Lord's decisions is the following;
A calamity like drought or flooding is designed as a test of believers. They are designed to strengthen the belief in God by testing virtues like patience and justice.
How will you act in a bad time?
During good times, the Lord tests us by observing whether we are grateful for his bounties.
People shouldn't engage in "good God" "bad God" talk, because God knows what is best for us. Religion is not designed to keep the poor in poverty or the sick in sickness.
Religion is designed to allow you to demonstrate how kind, gentle, courteous, respectful, and thankful you are in all times of life, good or bad.
Free will does not exist, as the OP stated, we are only allowed to choose what we are allowed to choose... i.e. what crops to plant if we are farmers, who to marry, but we can't plan the destruction of uranus.
On March 11 2012 09:22 Mente wrote: Third note: Every cognitive science in the world, EXCLUDING physics (specifically quantum physics) attempt to prove that the universe is deterministic, everything happens for a reason which can in effect be predicted based on certain facts. Quantum physics on the other hand is the study of probability and as such attempts to explain that things are most likely to occur one way but... maybe they don't some times.
such bold statements about cognitive science and physics. quantum physics is not the study of probability, it's the study of the very small. probability waves are just one of QM's many tools to describe how very small things work.
and i'd be surprised if you could find me a cognitive scientist who claims the field is attempting to prove that the universe is deterministic.
Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena where the action is of the order of Planck constant; quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the atomic and subatomic scales, the so-called quantum realm. It provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. In advanced topics of quantum mechanics, some of these behaviors are macroscopic and only emerge at very low or very high energies or temperatures. The name "quantum mechanics" derives from the observation that some physical quantities can change only by discrete amounts, or quanta in Latin. For example, the angular momentum of an electron bound to an atom or molecule is quantized.[1] In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave–particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons, electrons and other atomic-scale objects.
The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. A mathematical function called the wavefunction provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Mathematical manipulations of the wavefunction usually involve the bra-ket notation, which requires an understanding of complex numbers and linear functionals. The wavefunction treats the object as a quantum harmonic oscillator and the mathematics is akin to that of acoustic resonance. Many of the results of quantum mechanics are not easily visualized in terms of classical mechanics; for instance, the ground state in the quantum mechanical model is a non-zero energy state that is the lowest permitted energy state of a system, rather than a more traditional system that is thought of as simply being at rest with zero kinetic energy. Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities, according to John Wheeler.
The earliest versions of quantum mechanics were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century. At around the same time, the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light (as updated by Einstein) first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as quantum theories of matter and electromagnetic radiation. The early quantum theory was significantly reformulated in the mid-1920s by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and their associates, and the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr became widely accepted. By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, with a greater emphasis placed on measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics has since branched out into almost every aspect of 20th century physics and other disciplines such as quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics and quantum information science. Much 19th century physics has been re-evaluated as the classical limit of quantum mechanics, and its more advanced developments in terms of quantum field theory, string theory, and speculative quantum gravity theories.
you calling THIS probability?
Let me rephrase, there are many instances in cognitive sciences that can be translated into proving the existence (or lack there of) of free will. There whole goal isn't to disprove it. Sorry if I worded it funny; I wrote it in a hurry as I had a grill to watch.
And, Bro, I'm calling one facet of quantum mechanics that.
K, Bro?
I could understand how some people think cognitive sciences can sometimes be translated into "proving" some form of lack of free will even though it's probably not one of the smartest parallels to make. But I don't understand how "there are many instances in cognitive sciences that can be translated into" proving the existence of free will.
Another thread bashing religion. There are people (philosophers, theologians, historians, theists, atheists) way smarter than 99 % of us here that have debated this for decades and still continue to do so without ends.
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote: Look, the wisdom behind the Lord's decisions is the following;
A calamity like drought or flooding is designed as a test of believers. They are designed to strengthen the belief in God by testing virtues like patience and justice.
How will you act in a bad time?
During good times, the Lord tests us by observing whether we are grateful for his bounties.
I strongly suggest you google "Confirmation bias".
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote: People shouldn't engage in "good God" "bad God" talk, because God knows what is best for us.
Really? Your god looks like a capricious, malevolent, genocidal lunatic to me.
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote: Religion is not designed to keep the poor in poverty or the sick in sickness.
Statements like this just make me really fucking mad. Not just because they're patently, provably false, but that you honestly seem to believe they're true while promoting the single most destructive force in the history of humanity.
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:Religion is designed to allow you to demonstrate how kind, gentle, courteous, respectful, and thankful you are in all times of life, good or bad.
Like how respectful the Vatican is of altar boys, or how the pope is thankful for $500M golden castle while innocent kids starve? Is it courteous for street preachers to yell at me as I'm going about my business that I'm going to hell? Is it kind that religious people consistently persecute gays, atheists, those of other religions, and anyone else who happens to disagree with them?
Was it gentle of Mohammed to commit serial statutory rape, or to spread his 'peaceful' religion by fire and the sword?
On March 11 2012 10:39 cameler wrote:Free will does not exist, as the OP stated, we are only allowed to choose what we are allowed to choose... i.e. what crops to plant if we are farmers, who to marry, but we can't plan the destruction of uranus.
OR CAN WE
I can't even express how much this mindset terrifies me, because it is a necessary condition in order to become President of the US that you must think the same way. Enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world are constantly in the hands of a delusional person who thinks that God will save us if he pushes that button.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
I'm not sure who originally said the above statement (taken from OP) - if it was the OP, you're wrong. If it was Sam Harris, he's wrong.
Free will is something that cannot be quantified or explained by the laws of science, any more than the concepts of right and wrong can be explained by science. Saying that "the laws of physics determine everything in the universe" is just a bunch of lame hand-waving that's not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. We can definitely explain some of the phenomena that we experience and observe with science, but certainly not everything (gravity, anyone?). Oftentimes people incorrectly refer to a bunch of untested, unprovable hypotheses as "science", when they really shouldn't...I think Harris's claims qualify as untested, unprovable hypotheses, sort of like his own made-up religion.
And by the way, it's incorrect to say that Quantum Mechanics is about "intrinsic randomness" - QM is largely about probability densities and distributions...in other words, if there is randomness in QM, we wouldn't know about it. We would only be able to slap a probability on a given event/occurrence, and leave it at that. Saying anything more than that is forbidden by QM in general, and by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, specifically.
I believe we all have God-given free will...and I snicker to think about how one might live WITHOUT free will. You would never be responsible for your actions - wouldn't that be great? You could murder, rape, steal, and cheat to your heart's content...but it would never be your "fault" because you have no free will, right? It wasn't "you", per se, that did anything...it was quantum mechanics.....?
I'll address your first point, as all your later points have already been addressed by posters above me.
It maybe true that our understanding of the laws of nature are slightly off or incomplete, but my argument would still stand. My argument is that actions and thoughts are the result of particle interactions governed by the laws of nature, so all that it requires is that particles follow *some* laws of nature, perhaps laws that we haven't discovered yet, it doesn't require that it follow the laws which we know.
The only way for my argument to be wrong is if thoughts and actions are not the results of particle interactions, that they are independent of the laws of nature and causation. But this is absurd, because thoughts and actions are caused by neural events in the brain which is a wholly physical system that is governed by the laws of nature. Your suggestion that free will violates the laws of nature is bold. If true it would falsify thousands of years of empirical evidence showing that nothing is above the laws of nature. Luckily, your claim is completely unproven, and there is no evidence at all to suggest it is true.
BUT THIS IS STILL THE LEAST RELEVANT TO SOCIETY QUESTION THERE IS, NO MATTER WHICH DEFINITION OF FREE WILL YOU USE (cuz if you use the physical reality one, it's pretty obviously leaning towards no, and if you use that weird one other people use, you lean towards yes and seem to think for some reason that no = moral nihilism and therefore we shouldn't punish people + that weird compatibilism one that isn't any better)
On March 11 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote: It maybe true that our understanding of the laws of nature are slightly off or incomplete, but my argument would still stand. My argument is that actions and thoughts are the result of particle interactions governed by the laws of nature, so all that it requires is that particles follow *some* laws of nature, perhaps laws that we haven't discovered yet, it doesn't require that it follow the laws which we know.
Nice - so you fallaciously assume that "actions and thoughts are the results of particle interactions" that follow "laws of nature".... even if we haven't discovered them yet?
This is what I call turning science into a religion - you assume, quite stupidly, that everything in the universe MUST follow some "law of nature" and therefore MUST be 100% deterministic.
The phrase "law of nature" is a vague, empty, almost-useless term in discussions like these, because anyone can claim that any observable OR non-observable phenomena is "following some law of nature", even if we have no clue as to what that law is or how it might work.
I see people misquoting and misunderstanding quantum mechanics (and science, in general) so badly in this thread, it's scary...yes, we know a great deal about the universe and its physical phenomena. However, we would be narrow-minded and ignorant to believe that everything is deterministic, because we don't know everything about the universe, and probably never will.
This reminds me of the "Triumph of Classical Physics", back when it was popular belief that "everything had been explained" in the realm of physical science (with the exception of blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, etc.). How wrong they were...and how wrong we are to make stupid assumptions like they did.
Lets get a few things straight. There is no answer. There is none. So arguing about it, does nothing but split people apart. Now look at this. People are arguing against religion and now there are two groups(persay). Athiests and religion. And what do we get fighting? Religion is real and any one who claims it's not, insult them selves because it says they have never had a spirtiual moment. And my philospher in college gave me this quote which is just so beautiful!
Religious people know they are. Athiests dont.
And if you think about it for a long time, not only is it clever but has many meanings even that of one siding with non religious people.
I respect every ons right to do what ever and I have no argumen for any one
LOL! My brother from airizona just messegd me this!!
I asked him if he was religious he said
"Im a troll, I dont give a shit and have fun with the people who do!
One last note:
My philosphy Teacher was an Agnostic. And alot of athiest quit his class when he gave us that quote, not even realizing the quote insulted and had meaning for almost every religious and non religious group. And I'll never forget, he looked over to me and said "Athiests, so quick to dismiss". Now, yes it was off colored and yes , I had a lot of friends who told me to quit his class but thats what you get when you have a drunkard for a teacher.
On March 11 2012 12:15 paralleluniverse wrote: It maybe true that our understanding of the laws of nature are slightly off or incomplete, but my argument would still stand. My argument is that actions and thoughts are the result of particle interactions governed by the laws of nature, so all that it requires is that particles follow *some* laws of nature, perhaps laws that we haven't discovered yet, it doesn't require that it follow the laws which we know.
Nice - so you fallaciously assume that "actions and thoughts are the results of particle interactions" that follow "laws of nature".... even if we haven't discovered them yet?
This is what I call turning science into a religion - you assume, quite stupidly, that everything in the universe MUST follow some "law of nature" and therefore MUST be 100% deterministic.
The phrase "law of nature" is a vague, empty, almost-useless term in discussions like these, because anyone can claim that any observable OR non-observable phenomena is "following some law of nature", even if we have no clue as to what that law is or how it might work.
I see people misquoting and misunderstanding quantum mechanics (and science, in general) so badly in this thread, it's scary...yes, we know a great deal about the universe and its physical phenomena. However, we would be narrow-minded and ignorant to believe that everything is deterministic, because we don't know everything about the universe, and probably never will.
This reminds me of the "Triumph of Classical Physics", back when it was popular belief that "everything had been explained" in the realm of physical science (with the exception of blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, etc.). How wrong they were...and how wrong we are to make stupid assumptions like they did.
how acquainted are you with science? have you done the math of QM?
you seem so inflamed about the fact that we posit the definition of free will to be rooted in the natural cuz we think all our decisions and actions are rooted in the natural. we've already explained that not having free will wouldn't inform any idea of morality or any part of society, it's just a thing on its own. why are you so against this line of thinking?
Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
On March 11 2012 14:43 kidcrash wrote: Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
There seems to be a confusion in the word random.
When we say random, we mean the "random" that is used in the definition of a "random variable" in probability theory. When applied to quantum mechanics, to say that a position of a particle is random is to mean that the position of the particle is unknown and unpredictable, but it does not mean that it is equally likely to be at any point in space (the word used to describe this is "uniform" instead of "random"). The particle is more likely to be in certain places than other places, i.e. the position of the particle is random but not uniform. So that in total, these random particles makes up the universe we observe.
As an analogy, if you use a random number generator to generate a normal random variable on a computer (say on Excel), the next generated number is completely unpredictable to you, i.e, random. But when you generate lots of random numbers, in total they make a very predictable shape, the shape of a bell curve. The same is true of the randomness in quantum mechanics, i.e. each particle is random, but in total, on the macro level, it doesn't look random anymore, they make the universe we observe.
On March 11 2012 14:43 kidcrash wrote: Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
There seems to be a confusion in the word random.
When we say random, we mean the "random" that is used in the definition of a "random variable" in probability theory. When applied to quantum mechanics, to say that a position of a particle is random is to mean that the position of the particle is unknown and unpredictable, but it does not mean that it is equally likely to be at any point in space (the word used to describe this is "uniform" instead of "random"). The particle is more likely to be in certain places than other places, i.e. the position of the particle is random but not uniform. So that in total, these random particles makes up the universe we observe.
As an analogy, if you use a random number generator to generate a normal random variable on a computer (say on Excel), the next generated number is completely unpredictable to you, i.e, random. But when you generate lots of random numbers, in total they make a very predictable shape, the shape of a bell curve. The same is true of the randomness in quantum mechanics, i.e. each particle is random, but in total, on the macro level, it doesn't look random anymore, they make the universe we observe.
So how come you state in the OP that they are a "fundamentally unpredictable random processes" but above in bold you state they create a predictable shape? Once again excuse my limited knowledge but I can only further understand this by asking questions.
On March 11 2012 14:43 kidcrash wrote: Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
randomness is not uniform, and it's definitely not a uniform distribution. as i've mentioned before, it operates on extremely small scales. and at those scales, it's not as if their probability distributions are flat either, they're usually superpositions of sinusoids and exponential functions, just because of how the math turns out (with discrete quantum states of a certain number of properties). at the very beginning of the universe, when it existed at the scale quantum mechanics applied at, it's postulated that these processes, combined with the period of hyperinflation in which space stretched at incredible speeds (though not the energy/matter in space itself, so it's not in violation of that) created the large scale bumps of energies that eventually formed into stars and galaxies.
On March 11 2012 11:12 mowglie wrote: Another thread bashing religion. There are people (philosophers, theologians, historians, theists, atheists) way smarter than 99 % of us here that have debated this for decades and still continue to do so without ends.
And yet, have you ever heard one of these 'smart people' actually define Free Will or the mechanism by which it works? (the answer is no) People think they believe in Free Will because they never bother to ask themselves what 'Free Will' actually means. Explanations like 'Free Will is the ability to choose freely' aren't explanations at all but incoherent strings of words which have no meaning.
Surprisingly, it's not actually all that easy to recognise that you are debating the existence of something incoherent, regardless of which side you're on. I never even realised how vague 'Free Will' actually was until recently, and up until that point I was quite happy using arguments like the OP's, which wrongly place the onus on the non-believer to demonstrate Free Will's non-existence rather than firstly asking the believer what it is they actually mean when they say Free Will (and what evidence there is of said Free Will).
The whole debate is a complete reversal of the Scientific Process, and it only happens that way because belief in Free Will is something which existed before science, and thus the belief persists without very many people stopping to ask "WTF are we believing in?!". It's also relatively inneffectual (unlike belief in God, for e.g.), so there's really no hurry to be ridding ourselves of it in spite of its falsity.
This is of course ignoring compatibilist theories of Free Will such as Daniel Dennet's, which are so wound up in semantics that they fail to be useful in any real way (apart from providing the believer with relief from the scary idea that they may not have any control over the way things happen).
On March 11 2012 14:43 kidcrash wrote: Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
There seems to be a confusion in the word random.
When we say random, we mean the "random" that is used in the definition of a "random variable" in probability theory. When applied to quantum mechanics, to say that a position of a particle is random is to mean that the position of the particle is unknown and unpredictable, but it does not mean that it is equally likely to be at any point in space (the word used to describe this is "uniform" instead of "random"). The particle is more likely to be in certain places than other places, i.e. the position of the particle is random but not uniform. So that in total, these random particles makes up the universe we observe.
As an analogy, if you use a random number generator to generate a normal random variable on a computer (say on Excel), the next generated number is completely unpredictable to you, i.e, random. But when you generate lots of random numbers, in total they make a very predictable shape, the shape of a bell curve. The same is true of the randomness in quantum mechanics, i.e. each particle is random, but in total, on the macro level, it doesn't look random anymore, they make the universe we observe.
So how come you state in the OP that they are a "fundamentally unpredictable random processes" but above in bold you state they create a predictable shape? Once again excuse my limited knowledge but I can only further understand this by asking questions.
Because it's fundamentally impossible to predict with certainty the position of any particular particle before it's observed.
See analogy above about RNGs on a computer. This analogy proves that it's possible that every individual observation (particle) be unpredictable, yet the big picture over millions of observations (particles) still has a predictable shape.
In short, the statements "the position of every particle is unpredictable" and "the position of billions of particles makes a predictable shape" is not contradictory. In fact, this is the basis of statistics or probability theory.
Another real world example is the release of gas and steam. The motion of a single gas particle is unpredictable, it bumps and turns and moves in random directions. But the motion of the entire stream of gas or steam is predictable, in total it moves up into the air and disperses.
On March 11 2012 14:43 kidcrash wrote: Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
randomness is not uniform, and it's definitely not a uniform distribution. as i've mentioned before, it operates on extremely small scales. and at those scales, it's not as if their probability distributions are flat either, they're usually superpositions of sinusoids and exponential functions, just because of how the math turns out (with discrete quantum states of a certain number of properties). at the very beginning of the universe, when it existed at the scale quantum mechanics applied at, it's postulated that these processes, combined with the period of hyperinflation in which space stretched at incredible speeds (though not the energy/matter in space itself, so it's not in violation of that) created the large scale bumps of energies that eventually formed into stars and galaxies.
On March 11 2012 15:59 Swede wrote: And yet, have you ever heard one of these 'smart people' actually define Free Will or the mechanism by which it works? (the answer is no) People think they believe in Free Will because they never bother to ask themselves what 'Free Will' actually means. Explanations like 'Free Will is the ability to choose freely' aren't explanations at all but incoherent strings of words which have no meaning.
I'm sorry to sound crude, but this statement is horribly ignorant of the history of Western Philosophy. Do you really think that Harris, an honnest but quite lackluster and second-zone thinker, is the first one to measure himself seriously to the problem of free will? Have you ever read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, just to name a few? If you have, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you.
The quarrel between American fundamentalist Christians and the like of Sam Harris is at best an adolescent dispute, restating (caricaturally) arguments that having been around since Medieval (if not Ancient Greek) philosophy, and adding sparkles of modern science to it.
The sad truth is that philosophy cannot grow in such a venimous environment. Philosophy is the opening of the mind, not the peremptory closing of one upon one side or the other. This is America's own problem. It's barely a part of World Philosophy.
On March 11 2012 14:43 kidcrash wrote: Just a quick question from someone who is generally ill informed about quantum mechanics. If it is determined that QM is 100% random in nature, then why isn't the universe just one gigantic, incoherent blob of plasma mass?
It seems like if there were some structure in addition to the randomness that certain things could be explained. For example, the structure of the universe or things like evolution of species, etc.
There seems to be a confusion in the word random.
When we say random, we mean the "random" that is used in the definition of a "random variable" in probability theory. When applied to quantum mechanics, to say that a position of a particle is random is to mean that the position of the particle is unknown and unpredictable, but it does not mean that it is equally likely to be at any point in space (the word used to describe this is "uniform" instead of "random"). The particle is more likely to be in certain places than other places, i.e. the position of the particle is random but not uniform. So that in total, these random particles makes up the universe we observe.
As an analogy, if you use a random number generator to generate a normal random variable on a computer (say on Excel), the next generated number is completely unpredictable to you, i.e, random. But when you generate lots of random numbers, in total they make a very predictable shape, the shape of a bell curve. The same is true of the randomness in quantum mechanics, i.e. each particle is random, but in total, on the macro level, it doesn't look random anymore, they make the universe we observe.
So how come you state in the OP that they are a "fundamentally unpredictable random processes" but above in bold you state they create a predictable shape? Once again excuse my limited knowledge but I can only further understand this by asking questions.
I'd suggest you look up wave functions if you're interested in more information regarding this.
On March 11 2012 15:59 Swede wrote: And yet, have you ever heard one of these 'smart people' actually define Free Will or the mechanism by which it works? (the answer is no) People think they believe in Free Will because they never bother to ask themselves what 'Free Will' actually means. Explanations like 'Free Will is the ability to choose freely' aren't explanations at all but incoherent strings of words which have no meaning.
I'm sorry to sound crude, but this statement is horribly ignorant of the history of Western Philosophy. Do you really think that Harris, an honnest but quite lackluster and second-zone thinker, is the first one to measure himself seriously to the problem of free will? Have you ever read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, just to name a few? If you have, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you.
The quarrel between American fundamentalist Christians and the like of Sam Harris is at best an adolescent dispute, restating (caricaturally) arguments that having been around since Medieval (if not Ancient Greek) philosophy, and adding sparkles of modern science to it.
The sad truth is that philosophy cannot grow in such a venimous environment. Philosophy is the opening of the mind, not the peremptory closing of one upon one side or the other. This is America's own problem. It's barely a part of World Philosophy.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't even referring to Sam Harris, just giving my own thoughts on the Free Will debate. I'm not even sure what 'matter' it is that you want to discuss with me. Care to elaborate on what you meant?
On March 11 2012 15:59 Swede wrote: And yet, have you ever heard one of these 'smart people' actually define Free Will or the mechanism by which it works? (the answer is no) People think they believe in Free Will because they never bother to ask themselves what 'Free Will' actually means. Explanations like 'Free Will is the ability to choose freely' aren't explanations at all but incoherent strings of words which have no meaning.
I'm sorry to sound crude, but this statement is horribly ignorant of the history of Western Philosophy. Do you really think that Harris, an honnest but quite lackluster and second-zone thinker, is the first one to measure himself seriously to the problem of free will? Have you ever read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, just to name a few? If you have, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you.
The quarrel between American fundamentalist Christians and the like of Sam Harris is at best an adolescent dispute, restating (caricaturally) arguments that having been around since Medieval (if not Ancient Greek) philosophy, and adding sparkles of modern science to it.
The sad truth is that philosophy cannot grow in such a venimous environment. Philosophy is the opening of the mind, not the peremptory closing of one upon one side or the other. This is America's own problem. It's barely a part of World Philosophy.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't even referring to Sam Harris, just giving my own thoughts on the Free Will debate. I'm not even sure what 'matter' it is that you want to discuss with me. Care to elaborate on what you meant?
On March 11 2012 15:59 Swede wrote: And yet, have you ever heard one of these 'smart people' actually define Free Will or the mechanism by which it works? (the answer is no) People think they believe in Free Will because they never bother to ask themselves what 'Free Will' actually means. Explanations like 'Free Will is the ability to choose freely' aren't explanations at all but incoherent strings of words which have no meaning.
I'm sorry to sound crude, but this statement is horribly ignorant of the history of Western Philosophy. Do you really think that Harris, an honnest but quite lackluster and second-zone thinker, is the first one to measure himself seriously to the problem of free will? Have you ever read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, just to name a few? If you have, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you.
The quarrel between American fundamentalist Christians and the like of Sam Harris is at best an adolescent dispute, restating (caricaturally) arguments that having been around since Medieval (if not Ancient Greek) philosophy, and adding sparkles of modern science to it.
The sad truth is that philosophy cannot grow in such a venimous environment. Philosophy is the opening of the mind, not the peremptory closing of one upon one side or the other. This is America's own problem. It's barely a part of World Philosophy.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't even referring to Sam Harris, just giving my own thoughts on the Free Will debate. I'm not even sure what 'matter' it is that you want to discuss with me. Care to elaborate on what you meant?
The matter of the definition of free will.
Ok. Well, like I said, I've never read a workable definition which wasn't completely compatibilist and worthless (including any by those philosophers you mentioned). Feel free to provide one, but I suspect that it isn't possible given that the human brain is severely limited in its ability to conceive of mechanisms other than cause and effect or randomness, and Free Will is seemingly impossible under either of these mechanisms.
Perhaps it is my knowledge of philosophy that is lacking, but I suspect that if a strong argument for Free Will had been made I would have heard about it.
And I'm not just close minded if that was the intended implication of your original reply.
On March 11 2012 15:59 Swede wrote: And yet, have you ever heard one of these 'smart people' actually define Free Will or the mechanism by which it works? (the answer is no) People think they believe in Free Will because they never bother to ask themselves what 'Free Will' actually means. Explanations like 'Free Will is the ability to choose freely' aren't explanations at all but incoherent strings of words which have no meaning.
I'm sorry to sound crude, but this statement is horribly ignorant of the history of Western Philosophy. Do you really think that Harris, an honnest but quite lackluster and second-zone thinker, is the first one to measure himself seriously to the problem of free will? Have you ever read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, just to name a few? If you have, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you.
The quarrel between American fundamentalist Christians and the like of Sam Harris is at best an adolescent dispute, restating (caricaturally) arguments that having been around since Medieval (if not Ancient Greek) philosophy, and adding sparkles of modern science to it.
The sad truth is that philosophy cannot grow in such a venimous environment. Philosophy is the opening of the mind, not the peremptory closing of one upon one side or the other. This is America's own problem. It's barely a part of World Philosophy.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't even referring to Sam Harris, just giving my own thoughts on the Free Will debate. I'm not even sure what 'matter' it is that you want to discuss with me. Care to elaborate on what you meant?
The matter of the definition of free will.
Ok. Well, like I said, I've never read a workable definition which wasn't completely compatibilist and worthless (including any by those philosophers you mentioned). Feel free to provide one, but I suspect that it isn't possible given that the human brain is severely limited in its ability to conceive of mechanisms other than cause and effect or randomness, and Free Will is seemingly impossible under either of these mechanisms.
Perhaps it is my knowledge of philosophy that is lacking, but I suspect that if a strong argument for Free Will had been made I would have heard about it.
And I'm not just close minded if that was the intended implication of your original reply.
First we have to establish that there are basically two ways of going about this whole topic, the opposition of which constitutes a philosophical problem all by itself.
The first way asserts that knowledge is a priori bound by Nature (the knownable object), the other that it is a priori bound by the Mind (the knowing subject). Modern pure and applied science is almost purely positivistic (i.e. the first way). The other way is that of phenomenology: the science of conscience itself; that of Husserl and Heidegger most notably.
Positivism is naturally (i.e. at first) deterministic, since a Nature that's not an objective reality identical-to-itself is null and void. This is why the now-mainstream interpretation of quantum physics represents to some extent a scandal: how can we "do science" if the Universe is, in the end, unpredictable? On the other hand, phenomenology is naturally non-deterministic. A mind that is not autonomous subjective movement is not the mind anymore, it's a pure fonction or a neural network, fixed by the natural laws of casuality. This is why the scientific discoveries that explain thoughts through biological considerations of the brain represent an opposite and equal scandal. What's the point of being, if we're absolutely devoid of true interiority, if we're simply a result of something else on which we can have no control?
But ultimatly neither of them can prove or disprove free will, become freedom can only reside in the effective relation between the subject and the object. This is why we need a third science which mediates the two first.
Hegel, who spent his life building such a science, defined freedom as the determination of the Self; i.e. auto-determination. Hegel didn't oppose freedom and necessity, he opposed necessity and randomness. He used to say: "The random is the un-thought." The random is that which is outside of the Concept. But to Hegel the Concept isn't the privilege of the conscious mind. The Universe in its entirety is the deployment of the Concept. This is why Nature, to him, is essentially the external manifestation of Logic (which is at the same that the auto-destruction of Logic, since Logic is a purely interior relation). And Nature, in return, is the becoming-the-Mind. The goal of Nature is to produce Understanding of Itself and to become free, since it is fully aware of the process that It is and is not blindly "stuck" in it anymore. TL;DR: Reason makes you free, because Nature is the Concept.
Of course this is a pretty faulty and lame résumé, but what did you expect?
I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
On March 11 2012 20:55 MiraMax wrote: I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
You answered your owned question.
As for why experiments are successful, they are successful because everything in the universe follows some laws of nature and the experiment is designed to measure those laws, so that it cannot be the case that the outcome tricks us with the "wrong observation".
And I'm sure compatiblists would not appreciate you mischaracterizing them as non-determinists, as compatiblist generally do believe in determinism, at least up to any randomness brought by quantum mechanics.
On March 11 2012 20:55 MiraMax wrote: I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
You answered your owned question.
As for why experiments are successful, they are successful because everything in the universe follows some laws of nature and the experiment is designed to measure those laws, so that it cannot be the case that the outcome tricks us with the "wrong observation".
And I'm sure compatiblists would not appreciate you mischaracterizing them as non-determinists, as compatiblist generally do believe in determinism, at least up to any randomness brought by quantum mechanics.
Could you point me to where I said that compatibilists are non-determinists? Hmm ... didn't think so ...
You also just dodged the question. How do YOU explain the results of the proposed experiment given your stance on free will? I am afraid "The universe follows some laws of nature" does not really cut it. On what basis do you still hold that "You were not really able to do X instead of Y" since it was all predetermined, in light of the proposed results. What if I modify the experiment and note down beforehand which action I will choose to do and which not. How would you explain my predictive power when it comes down to my actions given my inability to calculate the future development of the whole universe from current conditions plus my inability to 'really' choose my actions? Your worldview needs to be able to account for these phenomena if you want to claim that it has a basis in reality, don't you think?
Your only offer is: "Well, it was all predetermined so it could not have been otherwise...move along folks, nothing more to see". Unfortunately, this doesn't explain anything.
On March 11 2012 20:55 MiraMax wrote: I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
That's a weak thought experiment... You can't introduce as a postulate a process of randomization, if you precisely intend to prove that you can act randomly.
In other words, I could argue that you had no choice but to randomize that set of actions the way you did, and that this randomization process was bound the give the exact result it gave, because of the laws of nature.
On March 11 2012 20:55 MiraMax wrote: I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
You answered your owned question.
As for why experiments are successful, they are successful because everything in the universe follows some laws of nature and the experiment is designed to measure those laws, so that it cannot be the case that the outcome tricks us with the "wrong observation".
And I'm sure compatiblists would not appreciate you mischaracterizing them as non-determinists, as compatiblist generally do believe in determinism, at least up to any randomness brought by quantum mechanics.
Could you point me to where I said that compatibilists are non-determinists? Hmm ... didn't think so ...
You also just dodged the question. How do YOU explain the results of the proposed experiment given your stance on free will? I am afraid "The universe follows some laws of nature" does not really cut it. On what basis do you still hold that "You were not really able to do X instead of Y" since it was all predetermined, in light of the proposed results. What if I modify the experiment and note down beforehand which action I will choose to do and which not. How would you explain my predictive power when it comes down to my actions given my inability to calculate the future development of the whole universe from current conditions plus my inability to 'really' choose my actions? Your worldview needs to be able to account for these phenomena if you want to claim that it has a basis in reality, don't you think?
Your only offer is: "Well, it was all predetermined so it could not have been otherwise...move along folks, nothing more to see". Unfortunately, this doesn't explain anything.
You said that:
A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
A compatibilist would probably argue something like: you have the ability to act according to your motivation to do what is on the piece of card, but the motivation arose through deterministic neural activities in your brain, and you had no choice in having those motivations.
Again, you've answered your own question: "Well, it was all predetermined so it could not have been otherwise...move along folks, nothing more to see". However, I would add to this that the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random because of quantum mechanics.
The explanation is that you do not have absolute free will, but you have the compatibilist's free will: you act according to your motivations, which if we were to ignore quantum mechanical effects, is deterministic. Your brain, through the culmination of your experiences, influences, environment and biology believes that free will exists, and decides to partake in this experiment, and to act out what is written on the card. Nowhere in this causal chain is there a choice, your brains motivation is determined by prior causes, as is the card that is drawn.
And nowhere do you have to calculate anything relating to all prior states of the universe, the motivation to do as the card says arose in your brain not out of your free will, but out of prior causes, and these causes eventually lead to the effect of doing what is specified on the card as if it were a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When you say that "The universe follows some laws of nature" doesn't cut it, I respond by saying "The universe usually follows the laws of nature, but not always" is clearly absurd.
On March 11 2012 20:55 MiraMax wrote: I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
That's a weak thought experiment... You can't introduce as a postulate a process of randomization, if you precisely intend to prove that you can act randomly.
In other words, I could argue that you had no choice but to randomize that set of actions the way you did, and that this randomization process was bound the give the exact result it gave, because of the laws of nature.
You seem to misunderstand the experiment. It's not supposed to show that one can act "randomly" (how would this be done?). But instead to show that 'real' alternatives exist, i.e. at a given point in time I am 'really' able to do X and Y, so that I 'really' need to choose between X and Y (consciously or subconsciously).
Sure you can say that the whole experiment is predetermined and so nothing can be learned. But this would apply to any inference.
Take evolution for example: "In order for evolution to work fit organsims need to be able to be selected for in favour of less fit organsims. According to determinism this is not possible, since whatever organism procreates was determined at the beginning of the universe, so more fit organisms can never 'really' be selected for by external conditions since their survival is ultimately predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe and not by the external factors. Determinism therefore proves that 'real' evolution is false, there is only the 'illusion' of evolution."
Or gravity: "It might appear that masses attract each other but this is actually false, since it would presuppose that the position of any given object of mass could be anywhere else than it was predetermined to be by the initial conditions of the universe. So while there is the illusion of gravity, gravity is not really the cause of the observed positions of objects of mass, but the initial conditions of the universe are."
This is obviously all nonsense or better it misses the point of giving an "explanation" and analyzing "cause and effect". In my view, the moment of understanding that we are nothing but a collection of matter and so our constituents follow natural laws creates the strong cognitive illusion that this must mean that we cannot really choose our actions (I also thought that once). But this is mistaken. There is simply no connection. Just like from the possible fact that all positions of all objects of mass at any given point in time might be predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, it does not follow that masses 'really' don't attract each other.
On March 11 2012 22:11 MiraMax wrote: Take evolution for example: "In order for evolution to work fit organsims need to be able to be selected for in favour of less fit organsims. According to determinism this is not possible, since whatever organism procreates was determined at the beginning of the universe, so more fit organisms can never 'really' be selected for by external conditions since their survival is ultimately predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe and not by the external factors. Determinism therefore proves that 'real' evolution is false, there is only the 'illusion' of evolution."
You act as if the universe was fine-tuned at creation in such a way that violates natural tendencies such as evolution.
Take the example of a pseudo random number generator on a computer that is used to generate from a standard normal distribution. This is a perfectly deterministic process, we only need to know the seed (actually we only need to know there is a seed, even if we don't know what the seed is), yet the outcome of this process still has a central tendency: to generate numbers around the mean of 0.
So it's not like at the start of the universe, it was specifically decided that this organism would procreate, and this one won't etc, in such a way that the outcome is rare and "unnatural", deliberately to spite experimenters who will live 13.7 billion years later. The laws of nature (like the pseudo RNG algorithm) produces central tenancies, such as biological organisms evolving or heavier elements in the early universe lumping together to form stars (or generating numbers around 0).
But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
On March 11 2012 20:55 MiraMax wrote: I would like to propose a simple experiment for the extreme sceptics of free will. The only thing which you need to accept is that in order for me to do X, I need to be free do to X. I would say this holds true for any meaningful definition of "free", since by contradiction: if I am not free to do X it follows that I can't do X. "Hard determinists" can therefore solely argue that I am only ever "free" to do whatever I was predetermined to do, so that's no real freedom. If I was free to do X, I was only ever free to do X and nothing else (not Y, not Z, etc.), so since there is no 'real' choice involved, there is no free will in any relevant sense.
Now consider the following: Let me choose a set of simple actions ('raise left hand', 'raise right hand', 'scratch nose', etc.) which I hold I will be free to do in in a given situation (i.e., at a given point in time) and then write all of them on some slips of paper. Shuffle the slips, draw one and present it to me. Then watch how I perform this action in the given situation. Repeat a thousand times.
It does not take too much fantasy to imagine what the results of this experiment will be. I will be 'magically' able to perform any task that is 'randomly' chosen. How can you account for that? A compatibilist has no problem in explaining the outcome since I was free to do all of the actions (X,Y,Z,etc.) in the given situation and chose to perform the one presented to me. The incompatibilist does not have this option. According to him I was never really free to do X and Y and Z, but only ever the one action which I committed (either X or Y or Z), but why was it always the one presented to me?
The only way out that I see for the hard determinist is to declare that one cannot learn anything from this experiment since all components: its setup, its course of events and its results were predetermined. But notice that I could use the same argument against any causal inference out of any experiment ever made: "No, there just is no link that 'really' explains what happened, since whatever happened had to have happened anyway. There was no other way." Why is experimental science so damn successful then?
P.S.: The real sceptical hard determinist is then 'free' to repeat the experiment with 'a river' to see how that goes for him...
That's a weak thought experiment... You can't introduce as a postulate a process of randomization, if you precisely intend to prove that you can act randomly.
In other words, I could argue that you had no choice but to randomize that set of actions the way you did, and that this randomization process was bound the give the exact result it gave, because of the laws of nature.
You seem to misunderstand the experiment. It's not supposed to show that one can act "randomly" (how would this be done?). But instead to show that 'real' alternatives exist, i.e. at a given point in time I am 'really' able to do X and Y, so that I 'really' need to choose between X and Y (consciously or subconsciously).
Sure you can say that the whole experiment is predetermined and so nothing can be learned. But this would apply to any inference.
Take evolution for example: "In order for evolution to work fit organsims need to be able to be selected for in favour of less fit organsims. According to determinism this is not possible, since whatever organism procreates was determined at the beginning of the universe, so more fit organisms can never 'really' be selected for by external conditions since their survival is ultimately predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe and not by the external factors. Determinism therefore proves that 'real' evolution is false, there is only the 'illusion' of evolution."
Or gravity: "It might appear that masses attract each other but this is actually false, since it would presuppose that the position of any given object of mass could be anywhere else than it was predetermined to be by the initial conditions of the universe. So while there is the illusion of gravity, gravity is not really the cause of the observed positions of objects of mass, but the initial conditions of the universe are."
This is obviously all nonsense or better it misses the point of giving an "explanation" and analyzing "cause and effect". In my view, the moment of understanding that we are nothing but a collection of matter and so our constituents follow natural laws creates the strong cognitive illusion that this must mean that we cannot really choose our actions (I also thought that once). But this is mistaken. There is simply no connection. Just like from the possible fact that all positions of all objects of mass at any given point in time might be predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, it does not follow that masses 'really' don't attract each other.
In substance I agree with you. I just don't see any real pertinence in your thought experiment. It might be a good illustration of what's at hand, but it doesn't prove anything, since, as you show it yourself in the next paragraph, the deterministic position can still be defended.
But you do make a good point: epistemologically, pure determinism is content without form. And reciprocally pure non-determinism is form without content.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
There are quite a number of macroscopic dynamic systems that are so sensitive to initial conditions that any randomness at the (sub)atomic level will make them unpredictable even on small timescales. So what exactly are you trying to say? Confining "the randomness of the universe" to the subatomic level does not work.
Btw as long as it is impossible for anyone in the universe to predict the future it doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or not, there will always be the illusion of free will. Free will is a concept that has its place more in psychology than in physics anyway.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
To try to be even more precise: I am arguing that the possible fact that "I was always going to do X (in the sense that only one actual world possibly exists) does not and cannot even in principle limit my 'freedom' of choice in any relevant, comprehensible sense of the words "freedom" and "choice".
My evolution example was meant to show that by following your train of thought, I could insist that it is 'really' false to say that "evironmental conditions X at point in time t select for the procreation of organism Y" because this would imply that organism "Y" was not selected for in any possible world. Since only the actual world is possible, organism Y was necessarily procreating, nothing was 'really' selected for and thus there is nothing to learn from such an observation.
Our accepted "explanations" don't work like that. They allow us to consider counterfactuals and say: "Were environmental conditions X not present, but environmental conditions Z, organism Y could not have been selected for at time t". In exactly the same relevant sense I claim it is true to say that "had I not chosen to do X, I could have chosen to do Y at time t" irrespective of whether in actuality I chose X as a consequence of a chain of deterministic processes which were started at the beginning of the universe. This is all the relevant freedom I could ever have and want to have with regard to choices irrespective of determinism or indeterminism or the like.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
To try to be even more precise: I am arguing that the possible fact that "I was always going to do X (in the sense that only one actual world possibly exists) does not and cannot even in principle limit my 'freedom' of choice in any relevant, comprehensible sense of the words "freedom" and "choice".
My evolution example was meant to show that by following your train of thought, I could insist that it is 'really' false to say that "evironmental conditions X at point in time t select for the procreation of organism Y" because this would imply that organism "Y" was not selected for in any possible world. Since only the actual world is possible, organism Y was necessarily procreating, nothing was 'really' selected for and thus there is nothing to learn from such an observation.
Our accepted "explanations" don't work like that. They allow us to consider counterfactuals and say: "Were environmental conditions X not present, but environmental conditions Z, organism Y could not have been selected for at time t". In exactly the same relevant sense I claim it is true to say that "had I not chosen to do X, I could have chosen to do Y at time t" irrespective of whether in actuality I chose X as a consequence of a chain of deterministic processes which were started at the beginning of the universe. This is all the relevant freedom I could ever have and want to have with regard to choices irrespective of determinism or indeterminism or the like.
Your point about experiments making no sense in a deterministic universe is rather wonky, and is something I've already addressed in a previous post.
The universe follows physical laws, so it's no surprise that even in a deterministic universe, when we make a experiment, we would be measuring these laws in some sense. Then it is obviously not surprising that we can ask what would happen if we applied these laws to some particular situation. It would make sense if the situation was in the past and never occurred, such as what would happen on earth if dinosaurs weren't wiped out. It would make sense if the situation was something that is likely to occur in the future, such as how to make more efficient solar panels. It would make sense if the situation was a timeless property of the universe, such as how much vacuum energy there is in an empty unit of space. It always makes sense to ask legitimate questions of science.
Your argument taken to the extreme seems to imply, if we are in a deterministic universe, then we should immediately cease all science, because it is ultimately pointless.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
To try to be even more precise: I am arguing that the possible fact that "I was always going to do X (in the sense that only one actual world possibly exists) does not and cannot even in principle limit my 'freedom' of choice in any relevant, comprehensible sense of the words "freedom" and "choice".
My evolution example was meant to show that by following your train of thought, I could insist that it is 'really' false to say that "evironmental conditions X at point in time t select for the procreation of organism Y" because this would imply that organism "Y" was not selected for in any possible world. Since only the actual world is possible, organism Y was necessarily procreating, nothing was 'really' selected for and thus there is nothing to learn from such an observation.
Our accepted "explanations" don't work like that. They allow us to consider counterfactuals and say: "Were environmental conditions X not present, but environmental conditions Z, organism Y could not have been selected for at time t". In exactly the same relevant sense I claim it is true to say that "had I not chosen to do X, I could have chosen to do Y at time t" irrespective of whether in actuality I chose X as a consequence of a chain of deterministic processes which were started at the beginning of the universe. This is all the relevant freedom I could ever have and want to have with regard to choices irrespective of determinism or indeterminism or the like.
Your point about experiments making no sense in a deterministic universe is rather wonky, and is something I've already addressed in a previous post.
The universe follows physical laws, so it's no surprise that even in a deterministic universe, when we make a experiment, we would be measuring these laws in some sense. Then it is obviously not surprising that we can ask what would happen if we applied these laws to some particular situation. It would make sense if the situation was in the past and never occurred, such as what would happen on earth if dinosaurs weren't wiped out. It would make sense if the situation was something that is likely to occur in the future, such as how to make more efficient solar panels. It would make sense if the situation was a timeless property of the universe, such as how much vacuum energy there is in an empty unit of space. It always makes sense to ask legitimate questions of science.
Your argument taken to the extreme seems to imply, if we are in a deterministic universe, then we should immediately cease all science, because it is ultimately pointless.
Exactly! With the only caveat that it is not originally "my argument" taken to the extreme, but in fact what is implied if "your argument" is taken to the extreme. We can setup exactly the same kind of experiments for testing the consequences of free will and 'real' choices and none of our findings there are compromised by the possible fact that it was all predetermined to be so in the particular situation of the experiment. That is exactly why determinism cannot take anything away from the power and validity of any explanation including free will. Our will is free because we have real choices, because we can act otherwise even if this is only in the sense of counterfactuals, because if actuality is the only 'really possible' world any and all alternatives are 'merely' counterfactual, including our alternative modes of action.
Or you conclude that free will is only an "illusion" since all things could never be otherwise (including our choices), but then any other explanation above the level of "basic constituents and the deterministic law(s) governing them", like evolution or gravity are just "illusions" of regularity. I find this latter view unintuitive since it seemingly fails to fully account for their predictive power.
I would happily agree that free will is "as illusory" as is gravity, however. Would you?
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
To try to be even more precise: I am arguing that the possible fact that "I was always going to do X (in the sense that only one actual world possibly exists) does not and cannot even in principle limit my 'freedom' of choice in any relevant, comprehensible sense of the words "freedom" and "choice".
My evolution example was meant to show that by following your train of thought, I could insist that it is 'really' false to say that "evironmental conditions X at point in time t select for the procreation of organism Y" because this would imply that organism "Y" was not selected for in any possible world. Since only the actual world is possible, organism Y was necessarily procreating, nothing was 'really' selected for and thus there is nothing to learn from such an observation.
Our accepted "explanations" don't work like that. They allow us to consider counterfactuals and say: "Were environmental conditions X not present, but environmental conditions Z, organism Y could not have been selected for at time t". In exactly the same relevant sense I claim it is true to say that "had I not chosen to do X, I could have chosen to do Y at time t" irrespective of whether in actuality I chose X as a consequence of a chain of deterministic processes which were started at the beginning of the universe. This is all the relevant freedom I could ever have and want to have with regard to choices irrespective of determinism or indeterminism or the like.
Your point about experiments making no sense in a deterministic universe is rather wonky, and is something I've already addressed in a previous post.
The universe follows physical laws, so it's no surprise that even in a deterministic universe, when we make a experiment, we would be measuring these laws in some sense. Then it is obviously not surprising that we can ask what would happen if we applied these laws to some particular situation. It would make sense if the situation was in the past and never occurred, such as what would happen on earth if dinosaurs weren't wiped out. It would make sense if the situation was something that is likely to occur in the future, such as how to make more efficient solar panels. It would make sense if the situation was a timeless property of the universe, such as how much vacuum energy there is in an empty unit of space. It always makes sense to ask legitimate questions of science.
Your argument taken to the extreme seems to imply, if we are in a deterministic universe, then we should immediately cease all science, because it is ultimately pointless.
Exactly! With the only caveat that it is not originally "my argument" taken to the extreme, but in fact what is implied if "your argument" is taken to the extreme. We can setup exactly the same kind of experiments for testing the consequences of free will and 'real' choices and none of our findings there are compromised by the possible fact that it was all predetermined to be so in the particular situation of the experiment. That is exactly why determinism cannot take anything away from the power and validity of any explanation including free will. Our will is free because we have real choices, because we can act otherwise even if this is only in the sense of counterfactuals, because if actuality is the only 'really possible' world any and all alternatives are 'merely' counterfactual, including our alternative modes of action.
Or you conclude that free will is only an "illusion" since all things could never be otherwise (including our choices), but then any other explanation above the level of "basic constituents and the deterministic law(s) governing them", like evolution or gravity are just "illusions" of regularity. I find this latter view unintuitive since it seemingly fails to fully account for their predictive power.
I would happily agree that free will is "as illusory" as is gravity, however. Would you?
Gravity is not an illusion. There are laws governing gravity. Free will, on the other hand, is a violation of the physical laws, and therefore absurd.
Determinism does not compromise experiments, because the underlying thing we are experimenting on is governed by physical laws that the experiment will pick up.
Counterfactuals still make sense in a deterministic universe, because having learned about the laws of nature we can ask what would happen when they are applied to certain situations. This helps us with future predictions.
To think that in a deterministic universe we should cease all science is confusing determinism with fatalism. It's like saying, if the universe is deterministic, why do anything at all? Firstly, not doing anything is doing something and will lead to certain outcomes likely unfavorable, secondly if the universe is deterministic, you have no choice, if you do nothing you were always going to do nothing.
Applied to science, doing no science is stupid because it would stop human progress, secondly, we would have no choice on whether we stopped doing science or not, it was already determined.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
Even if the universe was random, wouldn't that still be an argument against free will?
If everything is random you obviously have no control of your actions.
The fact that your structures of decision are determined doesn't prevent you from deciding/choosing things stricto-sensu. It's a matter of definition, like often in philosophy.
If you choose an overly stupid definition of free-will, then that quote of Nietzsche obviously shred it to pieces far better than the 42 previous pages on TL
Nietzsche in the Ante-Christ The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Or perhaps those theologians disagree with your fundamental assumption that the laws of science are the only laws that govern the universe. Every belief system has a set of philosophical underpinnings which are assumptive in nature and cannot be proven. I think it is unfair for you to judge the ideas of the 'theologians' strictly on the basis of your own philosophical assumptions. Essentially you are using the internal consistency of their argument as evidence of fabrication, yet at the same time arguing that your argument is correct because it is itself internally consistent.
If one of these "theologians" was to come to you and argue that your view was wrong on the basis of the teaching of the Bible (and I would be surprised if someone hasn't ), I suspect you would be spectacularly unconvinced by their arguments since you reject their fundamental belief that scripture is an authoritative source of knowledge. Similarly, since they reject your belief that science is the only authoritative source of knowledge, your argument that science "proves" free will to be impossible, is essentially irrelevant.
I swear, paralleluniverse, if you say that things are random at the quantum level one more time I'm going to cyber-smack you.
I think people are too obsessed with this idea of choosing decisions. It's deeper than that. Your consciousness is also determinable by physical and chemical properties. What you want and what you desire are determinable if you somehow know everything. It's not like you don't want things and you're just following "destiny." It's that your wants and desires are also determinable, and they react with your environment and everything around you.
It's even worse than that. Because we react to abstract concepts as well. Now, I have no idea how abstract concepts are represented with chemical and physical reactions. I have no idea, but that seems to be the case. If I arrange a meeting with my friend Joe at 5:00 at the park. I recognize that at 4:45 I need to leave so I get to the park in time to meet Joe. Somehow, this is represented chemically and physically. Your understanding of these words is also represented chemically and physically.
Once you realize the depth at which things are "determinable," you begin to realize that the discussion seems rather silly. What does it matter if everything about you is fundamentally determinable? Does that somehow reduce meaning of your life or consciousness? Does that somehow mean life, misery, and happiness, is meaningless? Not really. It doesn't really affect things. Your will is still your will, and your choices are still your choices. Responsibility doesn't even go away, because we do react to ideas of "self-control" and "law."
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Or perhaps those theologians disagree with your fundamental assumption that the laws of science are the only laws that govern the universe. Every belief system has a set of philosophical underpinnings which are assumptive in nature and cannot be proven. I think it is unfair for you to judge the ideas of the 'theologians' strictly on the basis of your own philosophical assumptions. Essentially you are using the internal consistency of their argument as evidence of fabrication, yet at the same time arguing that your argument is correct because it is itself internally consistent.
If one of these "theologians" was to come to you and argue that your view was wrong on the basis of the teaching of the Bible (and I would be surprised if someone hasn't ), I suspect you would be spectacularly unconvinced by their arguments since you reject their fundamental belief that scripture is an authoritative source of knowledge. Similarly, since they reject your belief that science is the only authoritative source of knowledge, your argument that science "proves" free will to be impossible, is essentially irrelevant.
What evidence is there that there are any other laws that govern reality? He is simply using the rules of evidence and falsification to determine what's true. That's objective. And "science" is fundamentally true, as it is basically just the understanding of how Reality works. If religion disagrees with science, then you are literally saying that religion disagrees with reality. Reality wins. That should be obvious.
And if something isn't internally consistent then it is necessarily false. I don't know what you mean by that. If something is internal inconsistent and true, then it must be trivial. See the principle of explosion.
On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote: So what exactly is free will?
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms?
Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.
A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.
I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will...
Do you mind to explain why?
No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless.
I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose?
Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different.
If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post.
I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world.
I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not.
I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined!
If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do!
I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
*snip*
In other words, even if the world is provable deterministic, we still need to punish criminals and support goodness. We still need to develop a good moral code and follow it.
We need to do it as opposed to what? What is our other choice (if all our choices are determined)?
Do you understand now? You're still concluding that we need to act as if we had free choice, but we don't under the assumptions are you already granted (complete determinism).
Lets say I grant you (irrationally) that good and evil exits objectively in some way in a deterministic universe. How do I choose good over evil if all my choices are determined?
And then it follows if neither evil or good can be chosen, how can I myself be good or evil? Are they words which really contain meaning in a determined world? And the obvious conclusion is no, they do not hold meaning, and so we conclude that our original assumption was wrong, and that they do not exist.
I don't think this world is deterministic, but influenced by true randomness which cannot be controlled. For the good-or-evil question this has little impact, though, as I agree that there is no free will. But there is will and desire. One can feel pain and joy.
Even if a murder did not do it because of he free will (since free will is an illusion) he still did it with intent to harm. This is evil.
Lets talk about two situations. A man kills his girlfriend. He admits that he did it because he suspected her to not be faithful. Anyone who talks to that person considers the man mentally intact, but he has the view that he owns his girl so that he can kill her if she is not faithful.
The second situation is similar. A man kills his girlfriend, but as he is brought before a judge it soon becomes clear that he is not sane. He felt haunted and truly believes that his action was justified.
While the outcome is the same, I see the question of guilt very different. If one kills (or commits another crime) even though he is capable to reason, he did something evil. If someone kills someone (or commits another crime) with no intent to harm, he did something bad, not not something evil. Regardless of free will. The possession of reason renders you responsible. It also allows for an "ought".
Even with no free will, I see an ought to do good. This now looks like a biiig contradiction. I will have to think this through.
edit: I didn't even finished the Moral Landscape yet. When I am done, should I read Harris's Lying next, or Free Will?
Just out of curiosity by deterministic standards could you theoretically (if you had all the necessary data/ QM laws/ etc etc) make a formula to predict future events/decisions? (yes, impossible by all practicle means but theoretically possible) From a philosophical point of view, and not a scientific one, when I was like 14 I argued that we never 'choose' to do anything, every decision we are going to make we didn't 'choose' to make it..
The basis of my argument was that I didn't 'choose' which parents I had, or my intellectual capabilities, and every decision I made was just a result of past experiences, stimuli, etc etc. And then gathered that no one is essentially 'responsible' for their actions, in the sense that, they didn't choose to behave the way they did for the reasons mentioned above.
From what I gather, the deterministic argument uses physical laws to reach a similar conclusion that I had made, in that the laws of the universe govern the chemistry of our brain, etc etc as all deterministic posters have explained.
Combining the two notions, nature and nurture, wouldn't it be theoretically possible to create a formula that uses all past events (yes, specific to each person, stepping on a rock to having alcoholic parents or whatever)- bound by the laws of the universe, to predict future events?
What I imagined this formula to be is a number of constants, (laws of universe) and several probability functions (likelihood of x occurring given y), This is where I find it hard to be deterministic, because the deterministic perspective says that it is not a probability of x occurring - as x was always going to occur. Logically, that suggests we could determine future events, in which case, we could change future events by changing the present (causal factors), which nullifies the notion that it is predetermined. It becomes a big loop, and is incomprehensible. I feel like I am confusing concepts here, and if so please correct me...
I believe that there is a probability that an action is going to occur given (constants, and causal factors), and if you regressed 'life' i guess, the probability functions are what I would call 'free will' even though bound by several constraints
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
Now, I would like to tackle complexity.
The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own.
So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will.
Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference.
Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself.
Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another.
Lets start with 1 cell.
Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will.
AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will.
Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will.
However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1.
Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between.
AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that.
FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act.
AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote: I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand.
I've been flirting with responding in this thread, but nothing has really presented itself as a good launchpad. The topic of religion is a distraction. But this has grabbed me because it's both the point, and an introduction to the thing that this thread has missed so far.
You're right -- this argument is purely pedantic because it can't affect the life you live. Indeed, your perception is always that you have free will, and make decisions for yourself. Even if you admit that free will doesn't exist, you still experience it constantly. As far as anyone can say, functionally we have free will.
Think about that. Functionally we have free will.
This is the explanation of the problem. That being, it is rather easy to reason that there is no free will, or at the very least "free will" is a meaningless term.
We experience free will because we cannot know what our choices will be. They arise as the product of unthinkably many real physical events. Some of these may be literally impossible to know/observe/measure, if the veil of quantum mechanics is never pierced. In any case it's impossible to know all of the things that go into a choice. This is more than just because it's an unwieldy task. The physical cost of observation and computation prohibits it. The universe is bounded, and cannot perfectly observe itself.
As an aside, think of Godel's theorem in analogue, if that helps.
Anyway, it's literally physically impossible to attain the perfect information and compute it in a way that would demonstrate what a choice would be before it is made. Put another way, it's impossible to build a universe-predictor, because we are within the universe. The only way to learn the choice is to watch everything play out... and see the thing itself.
To come back to our individual experience: what is that other than one's observation of one's self? This is indeed just self awareness, consciousness. Thus, we experience free will as a retroactive phenomenon. This is not at odds with a deterministic universe; it is in fact the result thereof.
At heart, this puzzle can be understood most broadly under the umbrella of thermodynamics. In a way it is rather liberating. A deterministic universe provides knowable things but we can't ever know them all! Not even what we will do next.
This book walks you through everything I just tried to say; it's very neatly done. There's some random topical stuff but the core is well worth the read.
I think your post raises many interesting points, which I agree with.
We certainly feel like we have free will, and for all intents and purposes of living life, that is sufficient. However, your claim that we feel like we have free will because we cannot trace through the billions of variables that affect our choices to the origin of that choice, is an argument I've heard before. I think it's probably true, and it does make sense, although I'm not as convinced of its truth as some of the other things I've claimed in this thread. However, I offer a possible complementary explanation below.
I also agree with your argument that in a deterministic universe, it's not possible to know everything, and so there is still point in learning and doing science. This is another good counter against the argument that doing science in a deterministic universe is pointless, as someone in several posts above has been arguing.
Coincidentally, I've also said a very similar thing to your claim that we experience free will as a retroactive phenomenon, on the previous page of this thread, although it might be possible that I've misinterpreted what you meant by this statement. I said that motivations arise in the brain as a result of stimulus, genetics, experiences, influences, etc, and none of this is free. So while motivations do not arise freely in the brain, the fact that humans are able to act out their motivations, makes actions which seem like a free exercise of ones will, actually a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby one does according to their own motivations, which did not freely arise. So one's feeling of free will is the feeling that one has the ability to act out motivations that are genuinely theirs, although these motivations didn't freely arise.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
To try to be even more precise: I am arguing that the possible fact that "I was always going to do X (in the sense that only one actual world possibly exists) does not and cannot even in principle limit my 'freedom' of choice in any relevant, comprehensible sense of the words "freedom" and "choice".
My evolution example was meant to show that by following your train of thought, I could insist that it is 'really' false to say that "evironmental conditions X at point in time t select for the procreation of organism Y" because this would imply that organism "Y" was not selected for in any possible world. Since only the actual world is possible, organism Y was necessarily procreating, nothing was 'really' selected for and thus there is nothing to learn from such an observation.
Our accepted "explanations" don't work like that. They allow us to consider counterfactuals and say: "Were environmental conditions X not present, but environmental conditions Z, organism Y could not have been selected for at time t". In exactly the same relevant sense I claim it is true to say that "had I not chosen to do X, I could have chosen to do Y at time t" irrespective of whether in actuality I chose X as a consequence of a chain of deterministic processes which were started at the beginning of the universe. This is all the relevant freedom I could ever have and want to have with regard to choices irrespective of determinism or indeterminism or the like.
Your point about experiments making no sense in a deterministic universe is rather wonky, and is something I've already addressed in a previous post.
The universe follows physical laws, so it's no surprise that even in a deterministic universe, when we make a experiment, we would be measuring these laws in some sense. Then it is obviously not surprising that we can ask what would happen if we applied these laws to some particular situation. It would make sense if the situation was in the past and never occurred, such as what would happen on earth if dinosaurs weren't wiped out. It would make sense if the situation was something that is likely to occur in the future, such as how to make more efficient solar panels. It would make sense if the situation was a timeless property of the universe, such as how much vacuum energy there is in an empty unit of space. It always makes sense to ask legitimate questions of science.
Your argument taken to the extreme seems to imply, if we are in a deterministic universe, then we should immediately cease all science, because it is ultimately pointless.
Exactly! With the only caveat that it is not originally "my argument" taken to the extreme, but in fact what is implied if "your argument" is taken to the extreme. We can setup exactly the same kind of experiments for testing the consequences of free will and 'real' choices and none of our findings there are compromised by the possible fact that it was all predetermined to be so in the particular situation of the experiment. That is exactly why determinism cannot take anything away from the power and validity of any explanation including free will. Our will is free because we have real choices, because we can act otherwise even if this is only in the sense of counterfactuals, because if actuality is the only 'really possible' world any and all alternatives are 'merely' counterfactual, including our alternative modes of action.
Or you conclude that free will is only an "illusion" since all things could never be otherwise (including our choices), but then any other explanation above the level of "basic constituents and the deterministic law(s) governing them", like evolution or gravity are just "illusions" of regularity. I find this latter view unintuitive since it seemingly fails to fully account for their predictive power.
I would happily agree that free will is "as illusory" as is gravity, however. Would you?
Gravity is not an illusion. There are laws governing gravity. Free will, on the other hand, is a violation of the physical laws, and therefore absurd.
Determinism does not compromise experiments, because the underlying thing we are experimenting on is governed by physical laws that the experiment will pick up.
Counterfactuals still make sense in a deterministic universe, because having learned about the laws of nature we can ask what would happen when they are applied to certain situations. This helps us with future predictions. To think that in a deterministic universe we should cease all science is confusing determinism with fatalism. It's like saying, if the universe is deterministic, why do anything at all? Firstly, not doing anything is doing something and will lead to certain outcomes likely unfavorable, secondly if the universe is deterministic, you have no choice, if you do nothing you were always going to do nothing.
Applied to science, doing no science is stupid because it would stop human progress, secondly, we would have no choice on whether we stopped doing science or not, it was already determined.
You seem to have all that it takes! So why don't you listen to your own advice and simply abandon the fatalistic notion that just because a causal chain determines my free choice and that - in a deterministic universe - I will therefore always do the same thing given a sufficiently specific situaton this could somehow limit the freedom of my will or the freedom of my choice. It just doesn't follow.
On March 11 2012 22:25 paralleluniverse wrote: But the universe is not deterministic, the universe is random.
What are MiraMax and you are arguing about, then? It seems you both believe that the universe is random. : D
MiraMax believes we have free will, because he can choose to do what is on a randomly drawn card. I'm saying you have no choice in that. You were always going to do that.
The randomness in the universe is at the subatomic level, it doesn't in general apply to macro-objects like people, cards, computers, etc.
To try to be even more precise: I am arguing that the possible fact that "I was always going to do X (in the sense that only one actual world possibly exists) does not and cannot even in principle limit my 'freedom' of choice in any relevant, comprehensible sense of the words "freedom" and "choice".
My evolution example was meant to show that by following your train of thought, I could insist that it is 'really' false to say that "evironmental conditions X at point in time t select for the procreation of organism Y" because this would imply that organism "Y" was not selected for in any possible world. Since only the actual world is possible, organism Y was necessarily procreating, nothing was 'really' selected for and thus there is nothing to learn from such an observation.
Our accepted "explanations" don't work like that. They allow us to consider counterfactuals and say: "Were environmental conditions X not present, but environmental conditions Z, organism Y could not have been selected for at time t". In exactly the same relevant sense I claim it is true to say that "had I not chosen to do X, I could have chosen to do Y at time t" irrespective of whether in actuality I chose X as a consequence of a chain of deterministic processes which were started at the beginning of the universe. This is all the relevant freedom I could ever have and want to have with regard to choices irrespective of determinism or indeterminism or the like.
Your point about experiments making no sense in a deterministic universe is rather wonky, and is something I've already addressed in a previous post.
The universe follows physical laws, so it's no surprise that even in a deterministic universe, when we make a experiment, we would be measuring these laws in some sense. Then it is obviously not surprising that we can ask what would happen if we applied these laws to some particular situation. It would make sense if the situation was in the past and never occurred, such as what would happen on earth if dinosaurs weren't wiped out. It would make sense if the situation was something that is likely to occur in the future, such as how to make more efficient solar panels. It would make sense if the situation was a timeless property of the universe, such as how much vacuum energy there is in an empty unit of space. It always makes sense to ask legitimate questions of science.
Your argument taken to the extreme seems to imply, if we are in a deterministic universe, then we should immediately cease all science, because it is ultimately pointless.
Exactly! With the only caveat that it is not originally "my argument" taken to the extreme, but in fact what is implied if "your argument" is taken to the extreme. We can setup exactly the same kind of experiments for testing the consequences of free will and 'real' choices and none of our findings there are compromised by the possible fact that it was all predetermined to be so in the particular situation of the experiment. That is exactly why determinism cannot take anything away from the power and validity of any explanation including free will. Our will is free because we have real choices, because we can act otherwise even if this is only in the sense of counterfactuals, because if actuality is the only 'really possible' world any and all alternatives are 'merely' counterfactual, including our alternative modes of action.
Or you conclude that free will is only an "illusion" since all things could never be otherwise (including our choices), but then any other explanation above the level of "basic constituents and the deterministic law(s) governing them", like evolution or gravity are just "illusions" of regularity. I find this latter view unintuitive since it seemingly fails to fully account for their predictive power.
I would happily agree that free will is "as illusory" as is gravity, however. Would you?
Gravity is not an illusion. There are laws governing gravity. Free will, on the other hand, is a violation of the physical laws, and therefore absurd.
Determinism does not compromise experiments, because the underlying thing we are experimenting on is governed by physical laws that the experiment will pick up.
Counterfactuals still make sense in a deterministic universe, because having learned about the laws of nature we can ask what would happen when they are applied to certain situations. This helps us with future predictions. To think that in a deterministic universe we should cease all science is confusing determinism with fatalism. It's like saying, if the universe is deterministic, why do anything at all? Firstly, not doing anything is doing something and will lead to certain outcomes likely unfavorable, secondly if the universe is deterministic, you have no choice, if you do nothing you were always going to do nothing.
Applied to science, doing no science is stupid because it would stop human progress, secondly, we would have no choice on whether we stopped doing science or not, it was already determined.
You seem to have all that it takes! So why don't you listen to your own advice and simply abandon the fatalistic notion that just because a causal chain determines my free choice and that - in a deterministic universe - I will therefore always do the same thing given a sufficiently specific situaton this could somehow limit the freedom of my will or the freedom of my choice. It just doesn't follow.
It doesn't follow because the free will you're talking about in the statement is the compatiblist's free will. In which case, you're right, not even determinism can take that away from you.
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will.
Your environment dictates a fucking huge amount of what type of person you will become in life. Then there's also genetic RNG as to what type of brain you are going to have.
Free will does exist to an extent, but your environment definetly restricts it severely.
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will.
I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above.
See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice.
I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being.
Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice?
See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.."
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
Now, I would like to tackle complexity.
The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own.
So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will.
Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference.
Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself.
Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another.
Lets start with 1 cell.
Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will.
AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will.
Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will.
However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1.
Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between.
AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that.
FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act.
AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
On March 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote: On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote:
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will.
I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above.
See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice.
I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being.
Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice?
See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.."
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
Now, I would like to tackle complexity.
The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own.
So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will.
Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference.
Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself.
Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another.
Lets start with 1 cell.
Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will.
AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will.
Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will.
However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1.
Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between.
AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that.
FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act.
AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
I did read the rest of your argument, I just wanted to respond to that part because you said it was what convinced you that there is no free will, all I really wanted to say was that it did not convince me that there is no free will. (Keep in mind that I am still undecided in whether I believe in free will or not, I am still try to find an answer that satisfies me one way or another, but my own experience of my perception currently has me leaning towards free will existing)
I am still considering your more recent argument, but I haven't come to any conclusion yet.
On March 12 2012 17:52 cydial wrote: Your environment dictates a fucking huge amount of what type of person you will become in life. Then there's also genetic RNG as to what type of brain you are going to have.
Free will does exist to an extent, but your environment definetly restricts it severely.
That is our perception. The question is, if this perception reflects the truth. If I think more about the process which results in a decision, I come to the conclusion that the decision isn't generated by free will.
On March 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote: On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote:
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will.
I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above.
See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice.
I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being.
Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice?
See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.."
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
Now, I would like to tackle complexity.
The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own.
So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will.
Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference.
Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself.
Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another.
Lets start with 1 cell.
Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will.
AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will.
Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will.
However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1.
Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between.
AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that.
FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act.
AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
To me your question seems akin to asking at what point a table really becomes a table if you keep adding atoms to a collection of atoms which are not yet a table. What is that magic last step that is required to make non-table material into a table and why exactly was the collection not yet a table before adding this essential atom?
This is just pointless dialectics. The point is that there just never is such a sharp divide. Among living beings there are various degrees of freedom, in the sense of relevant "can do"s, with respect to decision making and will, with "normal" humans certainly being at the extreme end of the known spectrum.
On March 12 2012 17:51 Myrddraal wrote: On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote:
This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
The problem I have with this argument, is at what point will you be able to say that there is life? The universe that you have described seems to be missing energy, which makes the equation a lot more complex, without energy you cannot have life, without life you cannot have free will.
I actually tackled life already as you are quoting only an initial argument. Yes, there is life there is energy in the universe. Free will does not automatically follow. Please read my arguments a few posts above.
See, there are a few debate threads ongoing on this thread. Some are between the determinism and randomness and how it would impact each individual choice.
I would like a debate between what makes humans special in having free will. Someone who is for free to actually make a claim on how it could be possible, and at what instance it starts for life.. or a human being.
Do sperm have free will? A fetus? A baby? a 7 year old? An adult? Does an event trigger it? Perhaps you get free will once you make your first conscious choice? Are humans the only beings capable of conscious choice?
See, its one thing to argue that "there is free will" and another to argue that "there is free will, and a being attains it when/by.."
On March 06 2012 13:16 Don.681 wrote: This is the thought process that convinced me that there is no free will:
Start from 1 particle.
Imagine that the universe is just 1 particle. I don't know what kind of particle it is or what are it's properties but imagine it's alone. It has nothing to react to. It just sits there. Does it have free will? What is required for this particle to get free will?
Add another particle. It can be same as the first one or a unique particle with properties different form the 1st. Does each of the 2 particles have free will? Do the 2 particles have free will when thought of collectively? What is required for this set of particles to get free will?
Add more particles. Every time you add 1 ask the questions I asked above. At some point, you reach the number of particles in the universe.
At what point will there be an answer, "yes, this set of particles have free will"?
Now, I would like to tackle complexity.
The argument for free will (FFW) is that once you have the particles that compose a human, those set of particles have free will. This is because the distinct configuration of the human form, which includes the human brain, allows the human set of particles to act free and on it's own.
So argument #1 FFW: individual and sets of particles under the laws of the universe do not have free will. However, sets of particles reaching a certain complexity in a certain configuration still under the laws of the universe can have free will.
Another possible argument, #2 FFW: Something or someone outside the laws of the universe allows humans to have free will. This is where religion and mysticism come in. Frankly, there is no point arguing against this but I would like to state this here for reference.
Now, the argument against free will (AFW) is that everything in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe. No mater how complex and no mater how the configuration --weather the nature of the laws deterministic or random-- unless you invoke agument #2 FFW, nothing can have free will. Nothing can go against the laws. You cannot break the laws unless you break the universe itself.
Determinism or randomness is moot. The question is autonomy. Acting alone and by which mechanism. A will is one thing, but a will free from the universe is another.
Lets start with 1 cell.
Previously, my thought process discussed only particles. But since the argument #1 FFW tackles how special the human configuration is, we go directly to what comprises it. Obviously 1 Cell does not have free will.
AFW: 1 Cell does not have free will. 1 Sperm does not have it, 1 Egg does not have it, 1 Neuron does not have it. FFW: Agreed, 1 Cell is too simple, of course it does not have free will.
Now comes the complexity argument. I've googled that the estimate for the number of cells in the human body is 6X10 to the power of 13. That's a lot. We can argue on and on, but I don't think it would be explained anytime soon how a certain configuration of 6x10^13 cells can or cannot have free will.
However, as I've said. Lets start with one Cell. Lets look at how the human body reaches that number starting from cell 1.
Basic biology teaches us that we start with 1 fertilized egg that divides into a few trillion. So naturally, free will comes in somewhere in between.
AFW: An embryo, a fetus, a child or an adult --nope, they are all the same. There is no free will. Yes, we become sentient and self aware at some point, but that's all that it is. We can process more information than any other configuration in the universe, and base actions/decide from that.. but that's it. We are merely interfacing with the universe as with any other living thing or object. Our concepts of morality and science and religion and mysticism and this idea of free will is also a result of that.
FFW: No, sometime in human development, free will is gained. The complexity of the human configuration allows it to autonomously act.
AFW: So we need to define When/Where does this happen exactly.. Or, just an estimate.. Sometime between a baby's first word and fertilization perhaps? Is it exclusive to the human configuration? Does a Dog have free will as well?
To me your question seems akin to asking at what point a table really becomes a table if you keep adding atoms to a collection of atoms which are not yet a table. What is that magic last step that is required to make non-table material into a table and why exactly was the collection not yet a table before adding this essential atom?
This is just pointless dialectics. The point is that there just never is such a sharp divide. Among living beings there are various degrees of freedom, in the sense of relevant "can do"s, with respect to decision making and will, with "normal" humans certainly being at the extreme end of the known spectrum.
But free will is a sharp divide. It has to be a sharp divide. You are separating a system/being from everything else and saying that somehow, it acts free/alone/un-influenced by anything else. There is a spark/event somewhere that ignores all other previous events so that it may cause another set of events on it's own. The argument against free will is essentially saying that nothing does that. There is no sharp divide.
===Events caused by free will/a being with free will.===
What are the implications of not having this "sharp divide" and at the same time, there exists free will?
Lets say in the universe, there is a mechanism capable of free will. Since it is in the universe, everything else in the universe can interact with it. Therefore, each and every event this mechanism causes is the result of this free will mechanism. In turn, it influences every event in the universe. Therefore, this entitiy being part of the universe ---causes the universe itself to have free will.
If humans had free will, then, since humans are not really separate from the universe/reality --the planet has free will, the milky way has free will the universe has free will. The final outcome/state of the universe/timespace is determined solely by the actions of a species born in our part of the universe because it is free to act on its own regardless of the influence of everything else. The universe did not have this before we existed, it suddenly had it when the first human got free will, and it will be lost when the last human dies.
"There is no free will" is us being influenced by everything else/timespace/the universe. "There is free will" is us influencing everything else/timespace/the universe and being the sole drivers of events on it because we are free from all other events but at the same time we can cause other events on our own.
We need to stop looking at things as pockets of individual phenomena. There are no "pockets". We need to start considering how it looks like when looking at everything as one whole.
This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
That said, as a naturalist I cannot believe that we actually have this kind of free will. As has already been pointed out, we are composed of particles each of which obeys the laws of physics. Therefore, we obey the laws of physics as well.
The only way around this argument is to hold that the fundamental nature of the world differs radically from how we perceive it and to claim that something corresponding to our vague notion of libertarian free will exists at the fundamental level. In short, you have to get pretty skeptical/Kantian to believe in it. I'm not nearly skeptical enough to go down that line.
(2) Does 'Free Will' Express a Libertarian or a Compatibilist Concept?
This is of course a paradigm example of a verbal dispute (certainly by Chalmers' lights). That doesn't mean that one side isn't right however. If you're having a debate with someone that thinks that kicks are a type of punch, then you are having a verbal dispute, but you are still clearly correct about the actual meaning.
'Free will' is a lot more complicated than this, and frankly the state of the art understanding of metasemantics in semantics and philosophy of language is nowhere near advanced enough to decide the issue. Nobody has anything approximating a precise account of metasemantic principles. The best we have are vague generalizations to the effect that a symbol's meaning is determined by some combination of its use (where this includes dispositions and intentions to use), facts about what causes actual tokenings of the symbol, and perhaps naturalness of interpretation.
It really does not get very much clearer than that. In short, at this stage we have next to no ability to decide who is right about meaning in borderline cases such as with 'free will'. There's plenty of metasemantic pressure in favor and against both interpretations, and the X-Phi on this issue is all over the place (though slightly in favor of libertarianism). Charity and naturalness favor the compatibilist interpretation, but perhaps only slightly. Evidence is further diminished by the fact that very few linguistic contexts have features that actually distinguish between the two conceptions (since the laws of nature are rarely discussed in typical linguistic contexts).
To conclude, our understanding of metasemantics is nowhere near the level it would need to be to decide which side is right in the verbal dispute. If you think you know, you are wrong.
(3) Does Morality/Moral Responsibility Presuppose Libertarian Free Will?
This is probably the most important question. Many are inclined to say 'yes', and I feel that pressure as well. Before doing so however, I think it's important to ask yourself exactly how a libertarian free will could make moral responsibility possible in the first place. What conception of morality do you have that makes it clear that it can exist with and only with the existence of libertarian free will?
I don't have a good answer to this questions. The more I think about it, the more I think that it mirrors Plato's Euthyphro. Sure, it seems like morality cannot exist without the gods, but once you start to wonder how the gods are supposed to help matters, things get a lot more confused.
That said, something in me refuses to believe that objective blame and merit is possible in a world without libertarian free will (maybe they're impossible regardless). By which I mean, it cannot be the case that the world would be a better place in virtue of the suffering of the wicked, ignoring what further effects their punishment has. In a law governed universe, this reeks of unfairness.
I am inclined to keep the rest of morality though. Still negotiating whether or not that is possible.
I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
That I posted it earlier but I'm reposting it. ...
Honestly people like to jump into a bandwagon and it seems to me that one of the new cool things to say it's claiming that free will doesn't exist. Of course we are influenced by our environments profoundly some more than others... but, it reminds me a little bit of people supporting communism in my country (Venezuela, where communism is still cool) it doesn't matter how many examples you give them or how much logic do you use because they have the books to prove you are wrong no matter what.
I say this because in one of the videos posted in this thread showed as proof that there is no free will a scientist gives an example about a young guy that worked on railroads who had an accident losing part of his brain, after that he says that people used to say the guy wasn't the same anymore, that he just wasted his money on gambling and prostitutes... but put yourself in that guy's place. You are young, muscular, probably good looking and you lose part of your brain and face, people will look at you like you were some kind of monster it is like it is. I know this because it happened to me, I had an accident and a few surgeries where I ended up wearing external metal nails in a broken arm, my friends had a hard hard time looking at it... (I promised that if surgery went wrong I would commit suicide, I was lucky but it was pretty close, nothing wrong with my brain though), people on the street even took pictures or all looked at me and said things like "Oh gross!", now imagine losing part of your face... it is the end of the world for you, why not use all your hard earned money on prostitutes (trust me you won't get in a healthy relationship with only half your face, unless it's a daughter of Gandhi with infinite love, and even she likes normal guys), and gambling, things you wouldn't do otherwise but it doesn't matter to you anymore, because you will start thinking you are DONE.
I could see that being (part of) the truth. Sure removals of part of the brain can influence people's behavior, but to claim that especifically removing a part will make you 'waste' money on prostitutes and gambling it's stretching your argument too much.
In that same video, the scientist talks about a guy who had a brain tumor and suddenly started to like watching naked kids... his wife said he knew him all his life and that he wasn't like that 'before'. He had a surgery and the tumor removed, suddenly the desire to watch naked kids went away... but then the tumor grew again and the desire came back. A tumor is not a part of the brain, the part of the brain that was removed didn't grew back, the whole thing seems like a silly excuse to me, how the hell does your wife find out you like watching naked kids, maybe she got him watching child pornography or something then blamed everything on the tumor, started crying saying it wasn't his fault and after surgery... with a straigh face says (hey I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve) the desire in him is no more... good excuse for both of them to sleep at night.
My conclusion of this wall of text is: Removing a part of the brain sure can change a person, but to claim that a specific conduct is born because of it, it's stretching reality to fit your argument.
Oh I cannot even read this thread anymore. It's such a brainstorm of quantum mechanics, determinism, perfect prediction machines if feed all possible data in the universe could predict it but then it can't because of quantum mechanics are random, etc, you need a dozen phDs to even understand the surface of this discussion because it's so complex complex semantic complex complex really reminds me of the arguments of people supporting communism, it's so complex an argument that you cannot win because only them know all that complexity. : P
As an atheist for a long long time isn't religion the same thing, throwing incredibly complex arguments to prove your point, then end up proving it with semantics?, when reality is really so simple... only open your eyes.
This is not relevant but it's funny to me I guess, I became an atheist (without even understanding what it was) at 8 years old, because I lived in a farm in the middle of nowhere and I wanted to feed the chickens, so my dad bough me my own chicken as a present... I loved it, one day it just died and I was pretty sad. I asked my dad if chickens went to heaven, so one day when I die I could see my chicken again and be happy forever, and he said... "well chickens don't go to heaven son, heaven is only for people", Oh that poor poor chicken, I said "Dad but when the chicken dies what happends?", he said, "well it just dies and that's it." Right there I though what's different between a chicken just dying and me just dying, it would take about 11 years to finally be an atheist but it always went back to that, I sort of always knew.
It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2]
According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
I'm not a theoretical physicist or a religious person, and just like everyone else in the world all I can do is give my opinion on something so here goes. Although true that everything is just atoms and energy (no mention of this in the OP as far as I could tell) and that the atom movement itself has no free will component (we think so at least), I've come to believe that the joining of simple components can make complex structures capable of doing stuff much more complex then the simple components could. For example, Gravity. We do not understand it, we know it is one of the ruling forces of our universe and yet microscopically its non-existant, it is too weak to do anything and yet it makes the entire universe move. Gravity does not exist at the atom level, yet once they join it suddenly appears. According to the OP all humans should be able to do is randomly collide with one another since that is what atoms do, however any factory in the world will produce roughly the same stuff over and over again with no grand randomness to it. A shoe factory will make shoes, sure sometimes there is a botched one, but there will never come out a fridge or a live cow. Not much randomness for an inherently "random" process now is it? What does all this rant means? Well as I stated above, complex formation of simple blocks gain properties that can make it different from everything else. And by this I mean that even though atoms themselves do not have free will, some of the structures they make when joined could potentially develop such a propertie. Hopefully we humans are one such structure.
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote: It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2]
According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
That doesn't really hold. Determined and arbitrary aren't necessarily the only options. That could be a false dilemma. There could be a third "chosen" or simply "neither."
Free will is obviously poorly defined, but I don't consider this a good argument.
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote: It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
That seems to me like: It's really not that complex. (Or like my christian friends would say)
The universe exist. That means there has to be something that created it. God must have created it because things don't come out of nothing.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so god is all there is. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called atheism.
My whole point is: We do not know enough of this yet. We do know that society does work like free will exists, people think that their actions are theirs, even when the environment can influence profoundly. So there is a basis for something like free will to exist. That is a part of the truth, calling it a massive dellusion could be a dellusion in itself, because then you believe in the dellusion that the dellusion of free will exists, but unlike other dellusions (religions) free will seems like too much of an important component in human history, the decisition to move my leg, or paint the Mona Lisa, that is hard for me to believe it could be predicted. Maybe in this day and age biology doesn't know enough about our brains to know if free will exists. Read the posts above, it's a good argument/analogy about gravity... but just because we don't know much about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that's just ridicolous.
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote: It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2]
According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
That doesn't really hold. Determined and arbitrary aren't necessarily the only options. That could be a false dilemma. There could be a third "chosen" or simply "neither."
Free will is obviously poorly defined, but I don't consider this a good argument.
Poorly defined?
An event which is neither caused nor uncaused is IMPOSSIBLE to define. It goes outside the bounds of language or sense or logic.
On March 13 2012 03:02 Nevermind86 wrote: God must have created it because things don't come out of nothing.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so god is all there is.
1) Actually, things do come out of nothing. It is an observable phenomenon.
2) There is no reason to assume that the process which creates matter has to be a conscious being.
Heh I realize Liberal that you just pick parts of other people posts that fit whatever your argument is, taking it out of context. You could be a great political journalist. =/
On March 13 2012 03:11 Barrin wrote: Sooo... other than maybe disproving (yet another) part of religion (which won't phase most religious people even a little)... what do we really gain by making this distinction?
Determinism is a little depressing, nothing really gained there. It makes a lot of sense, but it is rather incomplete (as is all other views). Can't prove or disprove it (yet). Pretty sure the amount of effort put into this discussion is disproportional to the benefit that will come out of it.
We can eliminate the irrational judgments we make towards the behavior of others, or judgments of people themselves. That's a pretty big deal.
On March 13 2012 03:11 Nevermind86 wrote: Heh I realize Liberal that you just pick parts of other people posts that fit whatever your argument is, taking it out of context. You could be a great political journalist. =/
No, what I did was find the critical flaw in your deductive reasoning, and explain why it is an incorrect premise.
On March 13 2012 03:13 liberal wrote: No, what I did was find the critical flaw in your deductive reasoning, and explain why it is an incorrect premise.
You're good man. You 'almost' convince me of your political views.
On March 13 2012 03:11 Barrin wrote: Sooo... other than maybe disproving (yet another) part of religion (which won't phase most religious people even a little)... what do we really gain by making this distinction?
Determinism is a little depressing, nothing really gained there. It makes a lot of sense, but it is rather incomplete (as is all other views). Can't prove or disprove it (yet). Pretty sure the amount of effort put into this discussion is disproportional to the benefit that will come out of it.
We can eliminate the irrational judgments we make towards the behavior of others, or judgments of people themselves. That's a pretty big deal.
what the fuck? lol
So basically we wouldn't have to hold people accountable for their actions? Surely you didn't mean that. Unless you mean they should receive consequences for their actions regardless.
Honestly... I do this anyway without determinism just fine. It comes through a combination of wisdom/experience and empathy. Though I do realize that very few people do. But still, maybe this isn't the only or best path to that end.
I think people often confuse the notions of judgement and accountability. I can hold someone accountable for something, knowing that they did not really have a choice in the matter. This is because an awareness of accountability will influence behavior, and because punishment serves as negative reinforcement to diminish such behavior in the future. Or, if it's proved that rehabilitation alone has better long term social consequences, we could favor that entirely. And all this can be done without looking down on the person, calling them "evil" or "immoral" or a "monster," etc. Such judgments are eliminated with understanding, not only with empathy, but with an awareness that "free will" as a concept is nonsensical.
I would argue there are better ways of diminishing undesired behavior than to always harm a person. The people who most often favor harm and punishment under all circumstances are doing so under the false belief that the person "deserves" retribution. It's an evolved emotion which was and often still is helpful towards survival, but it also often irrational and misguided.
It is emotions such as that one which make it so difficult for people to accept the common sense fact that all behavior has causes.
On March 13 2012 02:46 JCare wrote: I'm not a theoretical physicist or a religious person, and just like everyone else in the world all I can do is give my opinion on something so here goes. Although true that everything is just atoms and energy (no mention of this in the OP as far as I could tell) and that the atom movement itself has no free will component (we think so at least), I've come to believe that the joining of simple components can make complex structures capable of doing stuff much more complex then the simple components could. For example, Gravity. We do not understand it, we know it is one of the ruling forces of our universe and yet microscopically its non-existant, it is too weak to do anything and yet it makes the entire universe move. Gravity does not exist at the atom level, yet once they join it suddenly appears. According to the OP all humans should be able to do is randomly collide with one another since that is what atoms do, however any factory in the world will produce roughly the same stuff over and over again with no grand randomness to it. A shoe factory will make shoes, sure sometimes there is a botched one, but there will never come out a fridge or a live cow. Not much randomness for an inherently "random" process now is it? What does all this rant means? Well as I stated above, complex formation of simple blocks gain properties that can make it different from everything else. And by this I mean that even though atoms themselves do not have free will, some of the structures they make when joined could potentially develop such a propertie. Hopefully we humans are one such structure.
Where did you get the idea that gravity doesn't exist on the atomic level? It is the weakest of the forces but it is proportionate to the number of atoms, or specifically the electrons, protons, and neutrons. So you add them all up and get the total mass. Also while it's the weakest it has the longest "range" so on the scale of the universe it has the largest effect.
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote: It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2]
According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
That doesn't really hold. Determined and arbitrary aren't necessarily the only options. That could be a false dilemma. There could be a third "chosen" or simply "neither."
Free will is obviously poorly defined, but I don't consider this a good argument.
Poorly defined?
An event which is neither caused nor uncaused is IMPOSSIBLE to define. It goes outside the bounds of language or sense or logic.
Where did get caused or uncaused from? Clearly free will is caused by the agent with the will. That's not the same as determined vs arbitrary though. Unless I don't understand what you're saying.
Either way, why are disagreeing with something that is impossible to define? There's nothing to even disagree with. It's just completely useless.
I mean I could just say free will is the ability of conscious minds to do what they want, which is perfectly consistent in a deterministic or indeterministic world.
On March 13 2012 02:25 liberal wrote: It's really not as complex as you are making it out to be.
An event is either caused or uncaused. And therefore either determined or arbitrary. Free will is defined as neither.
There are no alternatives to these in the known universe, and so free will is nonsensical. But our desire to believe something is often stronger than our sense. It's called rationalization.
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2]
According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations."
That doesn't really hold. Determined and arbitrary aren't necessarily the only options. That could be a false dilemma. There could be a third "chosen" or simply "neither."
Free will is obviously poorly defined, but I don't consider this a good argument.
Poorly defined?
An event which is neither caused nor uncaused is IMPOSSIBLE to define. It goes outside the bounds of language or sense or logic.
Where did get caused or uncaused from? Clearly free will is caused by the agent with the will. That's not the same as determined vs arbitrary though. Unless I don't understand what you're saying.
Either way, why are disagreeing with something that is impossible to define? There's nothing to even disagree with. It's just completely useless.
I mean I could just say free will is the ability of conscious minds to do what they want, which is perfectly consistent in a deterministic or indeterministic world.
Yes, conscious minds always do what they want to do, and that is consistent with determinism, because their want is determined. However, that's not what people mean when they talk about free will. It's not about want, it's about being somehow independent from both causality and randomness, it's about believing that the mind is a force of nature which controls matter, instead of matter controlling mind.
I agree, the term is completely useless. What we are arguing against is not so much the term, as the general propensity to deny that we live in a universe governed by predictable laws, and that the human body cannot violate those laws.
The human mind does not determine the outside world, it's the other way around. Free will is like saying the cake bakes the oven, it's a reversal of causality.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
On March 13 2012 03:13 liberal wrote: No, what I did was find the critical flaw in your deductive reasoning, and explain why it is an incorrect premise.
You're good man. You 'almost' convince me of your political views.
Liberal found the, yes, FLAW, in your reasoning. You are admittedly undereducated about this and yet you treat your opinion with the same weight as someone who knows what they are talking about, why? Have you ever read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect ?
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
Would imaginary numbers satisfy those conditions? They don't physically exist in any representable form and yet they are used to affect the physical (therefore existing).
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
Would imaginary numbers satisfy those conditions? They don't physically exist in any representable form and yet they are used to affect the physical (therefore existing).
Why did you go for imaginary when you simply could have gone for negative numbers? And in this case, you could just go for numbers themselves.
Anyway, as mathematics is all abstract representations of things I don't really know if that's much of an argument. I suppose it could be. That gets more into "what is a concept" kind of discussion though which seems irrelevant.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I appreciate your contribution frog, you are always a beacon of calm and authoritative exposition in a sea of petty disagreements. I also give credence to swede's critique. In my opinion your hierarchy of modes of the possible is a meaningless partition of systems with "laws" that share constituents which we casually take to be the same. More precisely each system you named should be thought of as separate with convenient points of similarity that bear the same name. However, I gather it's not controversial and I don't want to contest it seriously because that's just another fencing match over semantics.
Which is so often how, it seems, I reframe things to correct them. I would hope you grant that there is reality, and we are a part of it. The distinction between the physical and "higher up" (aka metaphysical) seems meaningless. There are other directions to go, but let's assume we perceive physical reality correctly and our science is accurate with ever increasing depth and acumen. If we can think of things, those thoughts are built in "physical" existence because our brains are made of atoms, yada yada. Is not the conception of a logical statement a physical phenomenon? Moreover, regardless of what you want to call it, the various constituents of reality must be interactive with one another and homogeneously comprised at some level. Otherwise a hypothetical counterexample would not be a part of reality. So I don't see the necessity of ordering possibilities as it pertains to this discussion. In fact the same line of reasoning I just explained goes to, I would hope, elucidate the decidability of free will as a defined concept. If not that, then it is a meaningless phrase. You said this yourself in so many words while leaving wiggle room for different viewpoints to cling to equivocal validity, but I don't see why. Of course you will see I go on to speak in these distinctions below, because they are natural shorthand, so only take the above as seriously as you might care to.
I will reiterate what I hastily spit out in my earlier post in this thread because I think it could make an impression on those of you who are following the real discussion here. (Presently let me point out my own thinly veiled elitism. Ahem.)
What I would say to you I say from the standpoint that the question of free will is clearly decided, but what I have to say would apply if you still have your doubts. It has to do with what we are able to know -- in other words, information. Disregarding problems of epistemology, there is a limit on what we can learn about the universe (which you can take to mean reality, if you prefer). To argue this in the broadest sense, imagine if that were not the case. It would mean you have perfect knowledge of all constituents of reality. This is tantamount to monism. I will return to this point later, but for now I hope we can agree that attributing agency capable of universal comprehension to a subset of the universe is either contradictory or pointless or both. (To elaborate about the pointlessness, given that were true, things like the passage of time, spatial displacement, any sort of identity due to distinction with a hypothetical other, would not mean anything.)
It seems more natural to me (and surely more practical) to deal with information in terms of our current scientific knowledge of the physical universe than to bother with higher philosophical problems you might incur (because they would have no bearing on results scientific). To wit, my assertion above can be understood readily by thinking of physical properties of matter and energy as data storage. If we know anything it is because some subset of matter (which I'll call brain for convenience without laboring the definition) can hold information because of a configuration of constituents' properties, or some ongoing process of interaction among them (based on those properties... same thing). There is a terribly large but finite number of states the brain can be in, potentially representing a lot of information, though in my conception most of that potentially relevant data is just randomness, or overhead. In any case that terribly large number of states could not possibly be sufficient to cover all possible states of the entirety of the universe.
By extension, if we want to arbitrarily attribute agency to any subset of the universe, it cannot know the universe.
This is what prevents a fated universe from being a disaster of meaninglessness. It doesn't matter that things are deterministic, or may be, or whatever you want to believe, because your access to actionable knowledge is constrained. I would even argue that self-examination leads to no better ratio of information (namely less than perfect), but that's not important here. The thing to see is that even in a deterministic environment, fate is a meaningless notion because existence itself is a constant process of discovery by and among its constituents. Put casually, any person lives in a world where anything can happen and can act freely in that world, because it is impossible to dictate otherwise.
Now, we arrive at an interesting thing to ponder. You may think of a neuron in your brain. It is a complex entity and we might some day ascribe some measure of "awareness" to it, and delineate what that even means and how it contributes to our own awareness. However we would naturally believe that the neuron cannot become aware of the being of which it is a part. In the same way, are we perhaps just a part of an aware universe? That would be one conclusion not difficult to reach if you believe that our "inert" constituents interact somehow to result in our awareness yet themselves seem not meaningfully aware. (Indeed, how could they be when the "laws" that govern their existence don't allow any freedom from their inert, predictable states. So to speak.) So, in the end I think monism is the only available conclusion but strangely we have only a partial awareness. I don't know what to make of that.
The paradigm I am hoping to share here really has less to say about free will than about consciousness in general. Backing up for a moment, it seems to me at the outset that the question of consciousness is intimately related to any question of free will. Therefore in addressing the nature of consciousness one could reasonably expect you might be able to decide about free will. Free will has to do with what leads to your choices. Consciousness is your awareness of those causes as well as the outcome, the choice. I have seen some posters discussing ideas about unconscious entities and their free will or lack thereof. My line of thought is motivated from a similar place. That sort of question is really asking about what leads to a given event. I think the only suitable answer is "everything". Lacking awareness of everything, I can't see how it's a person's choice, even though we have a consciousness that shortcuts that logical conclusion with the de facto experience of free will. We are a machine whose inputs are everything and whose output is the only action it could be, but that process is represented by the idea of decision-making.
On the topic of responsibility of agents (punishment for crime, etc), it's worth thinking about, but I would immediately try to build some kind of infrastructure around this same idea of unknowableness and discovery which functions as the familiar concepts on which much of our social philosophy is based like self-determination, choice, and will and action. This way we don't lose out on meaning or morality simply by accepting determinism. Personally I find those concepts to be antiquated but I concede they are nonetheless still useful in the wider world and there's no reason to let them fall by the wayside, because, for example, you could never explain any of this to a child, but it's very useful to tell a child "it's bad to harm other people".
On March 13 2012 11:52 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: dont lie to yourself children love harming people unless they're girls and only even some girls dnt love harming people children are evil
I don't understand why physic laws is a key element for people arguing against free will. Because since we are talking about 'we' as a biological being or thing (isn't it the same 'thing'), then it's biology as a science that will explain free will, of course as beings or things we are subject to physics but it is irrelevant.
Through history 'we' have explained unknown things through poetry or philosophy, because there was nothing better for us at hand, back in the days the earth was flat because through 'our' eyes it cannot be otherwise, the notion that we could live in the 'south' part of a sphere and not fall seemed impossible. In modern times with our knowledge of science, gravity, etc, we know better, the world is a sort of sphere.
The brain is a complex thing, certain animals do feel emotions because their brain allows them to, as long as those emotions are very basic. Because the brain is so complex maybe at some point for an evolutionary reason we ended up having free will. It is restricted by the environment but everything is restricted by the envionment, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and no, there is no need to bring a dual body/mind religious thing to support the notion of free will.
The brain is the complex structure that made possible for us to take complex choises, all that we have built is because the brain made it possible, 'creating' 'ideas' out of nothing created the technology possible to discuss these matters in this fashion. Evolution creating free will to take survival of the fittest to the next level seems like a good evolutionary tool, after all there is over 6 billions of us and we keep reproducing, isn't that the whole point of evolution? Have more offsprings than other species.
'Free will' just because it cannot be explained at the moment, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Biology one day will be able to explain what is it that causes free will to exist, maybe the brain got so complex at some point that all those things that long ago 'we' could only explain through philosophy, like ideas, creativity, free will, conscience, logic, morals will be explained. But look how all those concepts are good to our survival, actually is the difference between us as a superior species to the rest. Sheer brain complexity, honestly, made it all possible.
Determinism trying to explain the Mona Lisa, Jules Vernes, Michael Angelo and a bunch of other things is lacking, because at some point a decisition out of nothing was made. Out of their own choise.
The greeks argued that a minimum particle existed and that the whole world was made of it, I'm sure back then a lot of people argued that it didn't exist because it couldn't be proved. But the atom exists, it just took a long time for science to prove it. To them it made sense through simple observation that that particle existed, to us through observation makes sense for something like free will to exist. It is my decisition to move my leg, if "the brain took the decisition before... you moved... the leg..." I am my brain, since it is a part of my body.
That I posted it earlier but I'm reposting it. ...
Honestly people like to jump into a bandwagon and it seems to me that one of the new cool things to say it's claiming that free will doesn't exist. Of course we are influenced by our environments profoundly some more than others... but, it reminds me a little bit of people supporting communism in my country (Venezuela, where communism is still cool) it doesn't matter how many examples you give them or how much logic do you use because they have the books to prove you are wrong no matter what.
I say this because in one of the videos posted in this thread showed as proof that there is no free will a scientist gives an example about a young guy that worked on railroads who had an accident losing part of his brain, after that he says that people used to say the guy wasn't the same anymore, that he just wasted his money on gambling and prostitutes... but put yourself in that guy's place. You are young, muscular, probably good looking and you lose part of your brain and face, people will look at you like you were some kind of monster it is like it is. I know this because it happened to me, I had an accident and a few surgeries where I ended up wearing external metal nails in a broken arm, my friends had a hard hard time looking at it... (I promised that if surgery went wrong I would commit suicide, I was lucky but it was pretty close, nothing wrong with my brain though), people on the street even took pictures or all looked at me and said things like "Oh gross!", now imagine losing part of your face... it is the end of the world for you, why not use all your hard earned money on prostitutes (trust me you won't get in a healthy relationship with only half your face, unless it's a daughter of Gandhi with infinite love, and even she likes normal guys), and gambling, things you wouldn't do otherwise but it doesn't matter to you anymore, because you will start thinking you are DONE.
I could see that being (part of) the truth. Sure removals of part of the brain can influence people's behavior, but to claim that especifically removing a part will make you 'waste' money on prostitutes and gambling it's stretching your argument too much.
In that same video, the scientist talks about a guy who had a brain tumor and suddenly started to like watching naked kids... his wife said he knew him all his life and that he wasn't like that 'before'. He had a surgery and the tumor removed, suddenly the desire to watch naked kids went away... but then the tumor grew again and the desire came back. A tumor is not a part of the brain, the part of the brain that was removed didn't grew back, the whole thing seems like a silly excuse to me, how the hell does your wife find out you like watching naked kids, maybe she got him watching child pornography or something then blamed everything on the tumor, started crying saying it wasn't his fault and after surgery... with a straigh face says (hey I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve) the desire in him is no more... good excuse for both of them to sleep at night.
My conclusion of this wall of text is: Removing a part of the brain sure can change a person, but to claim that a specific conduct is born because of it, it's stretching reality to fit your argument.
If you take the butterfly effect.. you know, this idea that a butterfly flaps it's wings on one side of the world and somehow, it could trigger a hurricane on the other side of the planet.
Well, please bear with me while I illustrate the following example. In this example, there is no free will in the universe.
Consider a jar of air. Its sitting there on a table doing nothing. Now, consider an oxygen atom inside the jar of air. Its chemically bound to another oxygen atom. This oxygen atom has an electron spinning around it's nucleus. Now, composing this electron are subatomic particles. All these particles, like all subatomic particles should follow it's laws.
Now, 1 particle decides --i dont know the mechanism how, but suddenly behaves different to what it's environment is dictating it to do so. For a brief second, it had free will.-- it decided to move a certain way.
This in turn makes the electron of the oxygen atom move slightly different. Which makes the oxygen atom itself slightly different. Maybe it angles slightly to the left. In turn, its pair oxygen atom angles slightly to the left as well.
This oxygen atom has now decided the final arrangement of the air inside the jar. Remember that all gas essentially are atoms bouncing around because there is too much energy for them to settle into a liquid or a solid. But, this one atom with free will has influenced every particle in the jar. Supposedly, these atoms are flailing about a certain way, but one atom decided to move away from that and completely changed the final positions of all the other atoms.
But wait. It does not stop there. Since all air in the jar is in contact with the jar itself, even if it's completely air tight the atoms of the jar will undoubtedly be affected as well. Maybe its a nano-vibration different.
And the jar of air is in contact with the air around it. So lets say at least 1 atom of the wind passing by the jar is shifted lightly eastward. Well, if just 1 atom is shifted, then it should affect some other atoms. Lets say it shifts 1 stray nitrogen atom. Of course, many other atoms could have been shifted, but lets follow this nitrogen atom.
Well, this nitrogen atom fell to the soil. And being a gas, permeated the soil. On this soil is planted a seed. This seed is growing into a plant. Lets say its a sunflower. This sunflower will take nutrients from the soil and grow, so this nitrogen atom becomes part of the plant. In a few months, it a full plant.. and it's feeding butterflies.
Now, remember the butterfly I talked about in my first sentence, well it's one of them. It just fed on nectar on the plant with one of the chemical compounds having the nitrogen atom. Now, for the next hundred wing flaps that nitrogen atom does not matter. But, in one of the flaps it does. Lets say it part of a muscle or a neuron. It either takes up or gives energy to this one flap. Now the flap is finished. 5 years later, it triggers rain on your city.
Now, I know you had surgery and all. But think of how much a day of rain would affect how you would think for a week. I mean right now, how different would your day be if it was raining? The decisions you made on your clothes? Now, imagine that this was the day of your accident. How different would your life be?
All this because of a particle in a jar suddenly not doing what it's supposed to. It does not even have to involve biology. Everything is connected to physics. If a person is for free will, he has to argue how it becomes physically possible.
Now think of the jar of air as a human brain. It's now bounds more complex than a jar of air, but I don't think it can be more complex than say the biological process that made it. Imagine that that the same oxygen atom is in it. Imagine the same electron. Imagine the same particle. How did that particle decide to move on its own, independent of what it's environment of other particles dictates?
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
So, in the end I think monism is the only available conclusion but strangely we have only a partial awareness.
Just wanted to say that this post is frickin' awesome. There is one part which I don't completely understand though, which I've quoted here. Could you first of all elaborate on your definition of 'monism'? And also on what you mean by the part which I've bolded, specifically the use of 'strangely'?
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
No. I mean actual possibility in any way, the actual world or not. My point was that any coherence that a concept might have is related directly to the 'how' of that concept. Without giving some sort of 'how' it's impossible to assign any given concept a probability (which is exactly what saying 'it's possible' is doing).
So my question to you would be how do you know that Free Will is possible at all, in any other way? Because if you don't know then it's a guess at best, and a guess which can be tagged onto any other concept you can name with just as much justification (hence why I called it fallacious).
Like I said, I may have misinterpreted your original point, in which case I'm sorry for using you as an example. Either way, I've made the point I wanted to now (I think).
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I appreciate your contribution frog, you are always a beacon of calm and authoritative exposition in a sea of petty disagreements. I also give credence to swede's critique. In my opinion your hierarchy of modes of the possible is a meaningless partition of systems with "laws" that share constituents which we casually take to be the same. More precisely each system you named should be thought of as separate with convenient points of similarity that bear the same name. However, I gather it's not controversial and I don't want to contest it seriously because that's just another fencing match over semantics.
Which is so often how, it seems, I reframe things to correct them. I would hope you grant that there is reality, and we are a part of it. The distinction between the physical and "higher up" (aka metaphysical) seems meaningless. There are other directions to go, but let's assume we perceive physical reality correctly and our science is accurate with ever increasing depth and acumen. If we can think of things, those thoughts are built in "physical" existence because our brains are made of atoms, yada yada. Is not the conception of a logical statement a physical phenomenon? Moreover, regardless of what you want to call it, the various constituents of reality must be interactive with one another and homogeneously comprised at some level. Otherwise a hypothetical counterexample would not be a part of reality. So I don't see the necessity of ordering possibilities as it pertains to this discussion. In fact the same line of reasoning I just explained goes to, I would hope, elucidate the decidability of free will as a defined concept. If not that, then it is a meaningless phrase. You said this yourself in so many words while leaving wiggle room for different viewpoints to cling to equivocal validity, but I don't see why. Of course you will see I go on to speak in these distinctions below, because they are natural shorthand, so only take the above as seriously as you might care to.
I will reiterate what I hastily spit out in my earlier post in this thread because I think it could make an impression on those of you who are following the real discussion here. (Presently let me point out my own thinly veiled elitism. Ahem.)
What I would say to you I say from the standpoint that the question of free will is clearly decided, but what I have to say would apply if you still have your doubts. It has to do with what we are able to know -- in other words, information. Disregarding problems of epistemology, there is a limit on what we can learn about the universe (which you can take to mean reality, if you prefer). To argue this in the broadest sense, imagine if that were not the case. It would mean you have perfect knowledge of all constituents of reality. This is tantamount to monism. I will return to this point later, but for now I hope we can agree that attributing agency capable of universal comprehension to a subset of the universe is either contradictory or pointless or both. (To elaborate about the pointlessness, given that were true, things like the passage of time, spatial displacement, any sort of identity due to distinction with a hypothetical other, would not mean anything.)
It seems more natural to me (and surely more practical) to deal with information in terms of our current scientific knowledge of the physical universe than to bother with higher philosophical problems you might incur (because they would have no bearing on results scientific). To wit, my assertion above can be understood readily by thinking of physical properties of matter and energy as data storage. If we know anything it is because some subset of matter (which I'll call brain for convenience without laboring the definition) can hold information because of a configuration of constituents' properties, or some ongoing process of interaction among them (based on those properties... same thing). There is a terribly large but finite number of states the brain can be in, potentially representing a lot of information, though in my conception most of that potentially relevant data is just randomness, or overhead. In any case that terribly large number of states could not possibly be sufficient to cover all possible states of the entirety of the universe.
By extension, if we want to arbitrarily attribute agency to any subset of the universe, it cannot know the universe.
This is what prevents a fated universe from being a disaster of meaninglessness. It doesn't matter that things are deterministic, or may be, or whatever you want to believe, because your access to actionable knowledge is constrained. I would even argue that self-examination leads to no better ratio of information (namely less than perfect), but that's not important here. The thing to see is that even in a deterministic environment, fate is a meaningless notion because existence itself is a constant process of discovery by and among its constituents. Put casually, any person lives in a world where anything can happen and can act freely in that world, because it is impossible to dictate otherwise.
Now, we arrive at an interesting thing to ponder. You may think of a neuron in your brain. It is a complex entity and we might some day ascribe some measure of "awareness" to it, and delineate what that even means and how it contributes to our own awareness. However we would naturally believe that the neuron cannot become aware of the being of which it is a part. In the same way, are we perhaps just a part of an aware universe? That would be one conclusion not difficult to reach if you believe that our "inert" constituents interact somehow to result in our awareness yet themselves seem not meaningfully aware. (Indeed, how could they be when the "laws" that govern their existence don't allow any freedom from their inert, predictable states. So to speak.) So, in the end I think monism is the only available conclusion but strangely we have only a partial awareness. I don't know what to make of that.
The paradigm I am hoping to share here really has less to say about free will than about consciousness in general. Backing up for a moment, it seems to me at the outset that the question of consciousness is intimately related to any question of free will. Therefore in addressing the nature of consciousness one could reasonably expect you might be able to decide about free will. Free will has to do with what leads to your choices. Consciousness is your awareness of those causes as well as the outcome, the choice. I have seen some posters discussing ideas about unconscious entities and their free will or lack thereof. My line of thought is motivated from a similar place. That sort of question is really asking about what leads to a given event. I think the only suitable answer is "everything". Lacking awareness of everything, I can't see how it's a person's choice, even though we have a consciousness that shortcuts that logical conclusion with the de facto experience of free will. We are a machine whose inputs are everything and whose output is the only action it could be, but that process is represented by the idea of decision-making.
On the topic of responsibility of agents (punishment for crime, etc), it's worth thinking about, but I would immediately try to build some kind of infrastructure around this same idea of unknowableness and discovery which functions as the familiar concepts on which much of our social philosophy is based like self-determination, choice, and will and action. This way we don't lose out on meaning or morality simply by accepting determinism. Personally I find those concepts to be antiquated but I concede they are nonetheless still useful in the wider world and there's no reason to let them fall by the wayside, because, for example, you could never explain any of this to a child, but it's very useful to tell a child "it's bad to harm other people".
Thanks. A couple notes.
You claim that the notions of possibility I invoke are meaningless while admitting that that debate is a verbal dispute. The second part sounds about right to me. But as I said in my earlier post, sometimes verbal disputes have clear winners and I think I'm on the right side here.
The categorization of possibilities I listed is given meaning both by its use in systems of modal logic and its basis in ordinary discourse. Here are some ordinary discourse examples. It's a psychological law that we can only keep track of about seven objects in working memory at any given moment. This fact is naturally expressed by saying, "People are not able to keep track of 13 objects at a time," or "It's impossible to process information about 20 objects in working memory at a time." These statements are true and they contain clear markers of modality ('able' in the first, 'impossible' in the second).
But it's clear that it must be a very restricted notion of modality. For if we were talking about biological laws, these statements would be false since the way that information is processed biologically allows for systems of working memory superior to our own.
Modal terms represent the canonical way of expressing the claims of each science, and in each case we have to interpret the terms on the basis of the laws of that science. In these contexts, 'necessarily x' or 'it has to be the case that x' will express that x holds in every possibility compatible with the laws (I'm using 'x' as a propositional variable). But to even make sense of what's going on here, you have to recognize the broader types of possibility these are based in.
A final example. A chemist might explain why perpetual motion is impossible by claiming that the entropy of a closed system can never increase. Again, this must be a case of restricted possibility because according to the more fundamental laws of statistical mechanics this is only a probabilistic fact.
I think I'll add a few more comments later when I have time. One other quick thing to address is that when I speak of metaphysics I'm not speaking of something "higher up" than physics. I'm merely thinking of the most general or most fundamental features of reality. So, for instance, if only the physical exists that would be a metaphysical fact rather than a physical one. But it clearly does not require going higher up than physics in a particularly mysterious way.
can someone plan to make a random choice consciously? if you argue the choices with yourself the outcome will propably not be random. so the question is: how do i get to a choice if i do not want to think consciously about the outcomes?
lets say you want to choose between 2 choices. do the following in your mind: pick a rather large number (say over 100). pick a second lower number (under 20 or so). calculate first number modulo second number. if the result is even, pick choice 1, if the result is uneven, pick choice 2.
this whole thing should work, because: 1. this calculation is chosen to be difficult enough that you can not predict the outcome before hand. 2. picking two unrelated numbers big enough to don't have any meaning otherwise, wont give you any predictability about it.
this should work better, the bigger the numbers you pick are, because both points are strengthened by it. if the math is too hard to do in your mind, use a calculator, but pick the numbers by yourself.
i'd say: this shows you can not be predicted. i'm not sure if it means, the decision was made by your free will
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
No. I mean actual possibility in any way, the actual world or not. My point was that any coherence that a concept might have is related directly to the 'how' of that concept. Without giving some sort of 'how' it's impossible to assign any given concept a probability (which is exactly what saying 'it's possible' is doing).
So my question to you would be how do you know that Free Will is possible at all, in any other way? Because if you don't know then it's a guess at best, and a guess which can be tagged onto any other concept you can name with just as much justification (hence why I called it fallacious).
Like I said, I may have misinterpreted your original point, in which case I'm sorry for using you as an example. Either way, I've made the point I wanted to now (I think).
I think that conceivability represents a defeasible method of attaining knowledge of what is metaphysically possible. It does sometimes lead one astray, but it's often the best that we have. If you can provide a compelling argument against a conceivable thing's possibility, then that's fine, but I think that its being conceivable at minimum puts the burden of proof on those who would claim it is impossible.
Imagine church officials in Galileo's time telling him that the earth moving is not only false but impossible. Would it not be appropriate to appeal to the fact that it is conceivable to rebut that claim?
That said, libertarian free will might be metaphysically impossible despite its conceivability, and I'm open to that. But that would still not be enough to establish that the very idea is incoherent. Lots of impossible things are at least coherently imaginable, though in this case I'll admit that we don't have anything close to a clear imagining.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
No. I mean actual possibility in any way, the actual world or not. My point was that any coherence that a concept might have is related directly to the 'how' of that concept. Without giving some sort of 'how' it's impossible to assign any given concept a probability (which is exactly what saying 'it's possible' is doing).
So my question to you would be how do you know that Free Will is possible at all, in any other way? Because if you don't know then it's a guess at best, and a guess which can be tagged onto any other concept you can name with just as much justification (hence why I called it fallacious).
Like I said, I may have misinterpreted your original point, in which case I'm sorry for using you as an example. Either way, I've made the point I wanted to now (I think).
I think that conceivability represents a defeasible method of attaining knowledge of what is metaphysically possible. It does sometimes lead one astray, but it's often the best that we have. If you can provide a compelling argument against a conceivable things possibility, then that's fine, but I think that its being conceivable at minimum puts the burden of proof on those who would claim it is impossible.
Imagine church officials in Galileo's time telling him that the earth moving is not only false but impossible. Would it not be appropriate to appeal to the fact that it is conceivable to rebut that claim?
That said, libertarian free will might be metaphysically impossible despite its conceivability, and I'm open to that. But that would still not be enough to establish that the very idea is incoherent. Lots of impossible things are at least coherently imaginable, though in this case I'll admit that we don't have anything close to a clear imagining.
Like I said earlier, in my opinion truly conceiving of something includes having some understanding of how that thing might come to be. In short, the 'how'. So while you say you can conceive of libertarian free will being metaphysically possible, I say you can't until you provide a coherent explanation of how libertarian free will might exist.
I really can't be bothered laboring the point. To me your definition of conceivability amounts to empty words if it doesn't include some explanation of mechanism. My earlier comparison was good I think: it's like filling in the conclusion without any of the reasoning required to get there. What's the point?
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
No. I mean actual possibility in any way, the actual world or not. My point was that any coherence that a concept might have is related directly to the 'how' of that concept. Without giving some sort of 'how' it's impossible to assign any given concept a probability (which is exactly what saying 'it's possible' is doing).
So my question to you would be how do you know that Free Will is possible at all, in any other way? Because if you don't know then it's a guess at best, and a guess which can be tagged onto any other concept you can name with just as much justification (hence why I called it fallacious).
Like I said, I may have misinterpreted your original point, in which case I'm sorry for using you as an example. Either way, I've made the point I wanted to now (I think).
I think that conceivability represents a defeasible method of attaining knowledge of what is metaphysically possible. It does sometimes lead one astray, but it's often the best that we have. If you can provide a compelling argument against a conceivable things possibility, then that's fine, but I think that its being conceivable at minimum puts the burden of proof on those who would claim it is impossible.
Imagine church officials in Galileo's time telling him that the earth moving is not only false but impossible. Would it not be appropriate to appeal to the fact that it is conceivable to rebut that claim?
That said, libertarian free will might be metaphysically impossible despite its conceivability, and I'm open to that. But that would still not be enough to establish that the very idea is incoherent. Lots of impossible things are at least coherently imaginable, though in this case I'll admit that we don't have anything close to a clear imagining.
Like I said earlier, in my opinion truly conceiving of something includes having some understanding of how that thing might come to be. In short, the 'how'. So while you say you can conceive of libertarian free will being metaphysically possible, I say you can't until you provide a coherent explanation of how libertarian free will might exist.
I really can't be bothered laboring the point. To me your definition of conceivability amounts to empty words if it doesn't include some explanation of mechanism. My earlier comparison was good I think: it's like filling in the conclusion without any of the reasoning required to get there. What's the point?
It's still pretty unclear whether this represents an attempt to defeat the concievability evidence in favor of the possibility of libertarian free will or an attempt to say that that's not evidence at all. It sounds like you're arguing for the latter, but for the sake of your argument I hope you are arguing the former. I take it to be obvious that the imagined Galilean rebuttal I alluded to earlier would be justified even if Galileo could not name the mechanism of earth's motion, which he could not.
This is why conceivability must be taken as at least defeasible evidence even in the absence of a known mechanism. It represents a helpful guide to what possibilities can be considered open for the purposes of constructing scientific theories. We obviously cannot already know what the mechanisms are before such a theory is arrived upon.
Let's play a game. Here's the rules. You get to pick a number, 1 or 2. You then announce your number. I then get to choose my number. If I match your number, I win the game. Winning the game is good (because it gives me something I want).
You pick one. Do I not have free will to pick whatever number I want?
On March 13 2012 16:22 BluePanther wrote: Proof free will exists:
Let's play a game. Here's the rules. You get to pick a number, 1 or 2. You then announce your number. I then get to choose my number. If I match your number, I win the game. Winning the game is good (because it gives me something I want).
You pick one. Do I not have free will to pick whatever number I want?
Well it's semantics to a degree but non of the current knowledge about the universe indicates that your pick would be anything other than the outcome of a chain of events, which is probably not how most people would define free will.
On March 13 2012 16:20 Zergmeister wrote: thinking that you don't have a free will, is just a way to excuse your lack of responsibility.
Dare I guess you think free will exists mostly because you want it to exist?
On March 13 2012 16:22 BluePanther wrote: Proof free will exists:
Let's play a game. Here's the rules. You get to pick a number, 1 or 2. You then announce your number. I then get to choose my number. If I match your number, I win the game. Winning the game is good (because it gives me something I want).
You pick one. Do I not have free will to pick whatever number I want?
Well it's semantics to a degree but non of the current knowledge about the universe indicates that your pick would be anything other than the outcome of a chain of events, which is probably not how most people would define free will.
On March 13 2012 16:22 BluePanther wrote: Proof free will exists:
Let's play a game. Here's the rules. You get to pick a number, 1 or 2. You then announce your number. I then get to choose my number. If I match your number, I win the game. Winning the game is good (because it gives me something I want).
You pick one. Do I not have free will to pick whatever number I want?
Well it's semantics to a degree but non of the current knowledge about the universe indicates that your pick would be anything other than the outcome of a chain of events, which is probably not how most people would define free will.
On March 13 2012 16:20 Zergmeister wrote: thinking that you don't have a free will, is just a way to excuse your lack of responsibility.
Dare I guess you think free will exists mostly because you want it to exist?
But it doesn't matter what the chain is, i'll always win. Why? Because I can pick whatever number I want. The only way I lose is if I want to lose.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
No. I mean actual possibility in any way, the actual world or not. My point was that any coherence that a concept might have is related directly to the 'how' of that concept. Without giving some sort of 'how' it's impossible to assign any given concept a probability (which is exactly what saying 'it's possible' is doing).
So my question to you would be how do you know that Free Will is possible at all, in any other way? Because if you don't know then it's a guess at best, and a guess which can be tagged onto any other concept you can name with just as much justification (hence why I called it fallacious).
Like I said, I may have misinterpreted your original point, in which case I'm sorry for using you as an example. Either way, I've made the point I wanted to now (I think).
I think that conceivability represents a defeasible method of attaining knowledge of what is metaphysically possible. It does sometimes lead one astray, but it's often the best that we have. If you can provide a compelling argument against a conceivable things possibility, then that's fine, but I think that its being conceivable at minimum puts the burden of proof on those who would claim it is impossible.
Imagine church officials in Galileo's time telling him that the earth moving is not only false but impossible. Would it not be appropriate to appeal to the fact that it is conceivable to rebut that claim?
That said, libertarian free will might be metaphysically impossible despite its conceivability, and I'm open to that. But that would still not be enough to establish that the very idea is incoherent. Lots of impossible things are at least coherently imaginable, though in this case I'll admit that we don't have anything close to a clear imagining.
Like I said earlier, in my opinion truly conceiving of something includes having some understanding of how that thing might come to be. In short, the 'how'. So while you say you can conceive of libertarian free will being metaphysically possible, I say you can't until you provide a coherent explanation of how libertarian free will might exist.
I really can't be bothered laboring the point. To me your definition of conceivability amounts to empty words if it doesn't include some explanation of mechanism. My earlier comparison was good I think: it's like filling in the conclusion without any of the reasoning required to get there. What's the point?
It's still pretty unclear whether this represents an attempt to defeat the concievability evidence in favor of the possibility of libertarian free will or an attempt to say that that's not evidence at all. It sounds like you're arguing for the latter, but for the sake of your argument I hope you are arguing the former. I take it to be obvious that the imagined Galilean rebuttal I alluded to earlier would be justified even if Galileo could not name the mechanism of earth's motion, which he could not.
This is why conceivability must be taken as at least defeasible evidence even in the absence of a known mechanism. It represents a helpful guide to what possibilities can be considered open for the purposes of constructing scientific theories. We obviously cannot already know what the mechanisms are before such a theory is arrived upon.
My argument is that conceivability is only evidence of possibility provided that mechanism is included in the definition of conceivability. Without mechanism included it is a useless measurement since in that case anything can be conceived of, including things which we already know to be incoherent/impossible.
I should clarify and say that knowing the exact mechanism is not necessary. It only has to be an idea which is consistent with current knowledge (excepting any knowledge it might be challenging) and makes no logical fallacies. A scientific hypothesis is a perfect example of this. Some are right and some are wrong, but they all make sense at first (all the good ones anyway), although later on hindsight will make the incorrect ones look silly.
To use your Galileo example: Galileo would be justified in thinking that the Earth was in motion provided that he had some evidence that this was the case. If his justification was as simple as 'I can imagine the Earth in motion' then his belief that the Earth is in motion would be irrational, regardless of the fact that he 'conceived' of it (by your definition of conceive.. or what I interpret it to be anyway) and regardless of its actual correctness. Likewise, a belief that libertarian free will is metaphysically possible is irrational unless you have good evidence to believe that to be the case.
I mean, you still haven't said how you think libertarian free will might be metaphysically possible. I doubt you can even imagine a world in which libertarian free will exists. Thus far, your 'conception' of libertarian free will being metaphysically possible has gone as far as saying that libertarian free will could be metaphysically possible. Don't you see how inane 'conceiving' of something becomes if that is all that is required?
I hope you get what I'm saying now, although I still think my original reply to you was my best explanation, it being the most within the context I intended.
You pick one. Do I not have free will to pick whatever number I want?
No, not according to the arguments people have been pressing here, since your choise will in the end be either caused or arbitrary. It even seems as if free will is theoretically impossible in the model people use here, If you examine it closely, free will is nearly the same concept as god, It comes from something not found in current physics (wich is either arbitrary or caused) while it does effect the current physical world. Where it comes from is not described , though when you look at it closely then you will notice that the concept of free will almost implies the existance of a god or a higher power to be the source of this will, since nothing in the physical world as we know it today can be the source.
On March 13 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has predominantly featured three debates: does libertarian free will exist; does 'free will' express a libertarian or a compatibilist concept; does morality/moral responsibility require libertarian free will?
I'll address each in turn.
(1) Does Libertarian Free Will Exist?
I won't define 'libertarian free will', but suffice it to say that it requires one's actions to be independent of the fundamental physical laws of the universe (I'm using it to speak of the highest grade variety discussed here). Some in this thread have accused this idea of being incoherent, but that's a confused outlook.
It is physically impossible for this type of free will to exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to exist. There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws). If libertarian free will exists, then it would simply turn out that physical possibility is a narrower type of possibility than was thought.
This doesn't make sense. We've never seen anything which existed and was 'physically impossible' (or at least nothing which wasn't later discovered to be perfectly possible under physical laws, a la the bee and its 'impossible' flight).
Our ability to conceive of something is not evidence that that thing can exist. In fact, our conception of a world with different physical laws is incomplete anyway. Surely in order to truly 'conceive' of something you must understand the necessary mechanisms which allow it to be. But just 'conceiving of something' is not evidence of anything. It's like writing the conclusion without all of the necessary reasoning to reach that conclusion.
People have actually used this as an argument against me in different situations. It basically simplifies to this: 'I can imagine you being wrong (but not how you would be wrong), therefore I will disagree/withhold judgment'. As far as I know, that isn't a formal fallacy... But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call it fallacious given the uselessness of an argument like that.
A cursory study of modality will reveal that there is an absurdly wide array of types of possibility. Ignoring outliers such as deontic and epistemic possibility, we can construct an ordering based in part on which sciences supervene on which other sciences. Science possibilities are just metaphysical possibilities with the added restriction that the laws of the relevant science have to hold. There are biologically possible things that are not psychologically possible, chemically possible things that aren't biologically possible, and physically possible things that are not chemically possible.
Moving further up, there are metaphysically possible things that are not physically possible. If you don't think a world in which a single particle accelerates away from another is possible in any sense (that is all there is in that world), then you likely do not possess the every day concept of possibility. Even higher up than that is logical possibility, which makes the fewest restrictions. It is logically, though not metaphysically, possible for an object to be both red all over and green all over. The only logical impossibilities are explicit logical contradictions. This is all pretty basic stuff.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm not saying that, for example, a world with different physical laws is impossible, I'm saying that simply 'conceiving' of it is not a reflection of it's actual possibility (which is what you seemed to suggest in the post I originally replied to with "There are broader notions of possibility than physical possibility (hence our ability to conceive of worlds with different physical laws)").
Maybe that wasn't the intended implication of what you originally said, but I thought it was worth saying either way since it's a line of reasoning I see a lot.
By "actual possibility" do you mean it being true of the actual world? Because I thought I was pretty clear about not believing that libertarian free will exists in the actual world. The conceivability thing was meant to indicate that the concept was at least coherent, not that it was instantiated.
No. I mean actual possibility in any way, the actual world or not. My point was that any coherence that a concept might have is related directly to the 'how' of that concept. Without giving some sort of 'how' it's impossible to assign any given concept a probability (which is exactly what saying 'it's possible' is doing).
So my question to you would be how do you know that Free Will is possible at all, in any other way? Because if you don't know then it's a guess at best, and a guess which can be tagged onto any other concept you can name with just as much justification (hence why I called it fallacious).
Like I said, I may have misinterpreted your original point, in which case I'm sorry for using you as an example. Either way, I've made the point I wanted to now (I think).
I think that conceivability represents a defeasible method of attaining knowledge of what is metaphysically possible. It does sometimes lead one astray, but it's often the best that we have. If you can provide a compelling argument against a conceivable things possibility, then that's fine, but I think that its being conceivable at minimum puts the burden of proof on those who would claim it is impossible.
Imagine church officials in Galileo's time telling him that the earth moving is not only false but impossible. Would it not be appropriate to appeal to the fact that it is conceivable to rebut that claim?
That said, libertarian free will might be metaphysically impossible despite its conceivability, and I'm open to that. But that would still not be enough to establish that the very idea is incoherent. Lots of impossible things are at least coherently imaginable, though in this case I'll admit that we don't have anything close to a clear imagining.
Like I said earlier, in my opinion truly conceiving of something includes having some understanding of how that thing might come to be. In short, the 'how'. So while you say you can conceive of libertarian free will being metaphysically possible, I say you can't until you provide a coherent explanation of how libertarian free will might exist.
I really can't be bothered laboring the point. To me your definition of conceivability amounts to empty words if it doesn't include some explanation of mechanism. My earlier comparison was good I think: it's like filling in the conclusion without any of the reasoning required to get there. What's the point?
It's still pretty unclear whether this represents an attempt to defeat the concievability evidence in favor of the possibility of libertarian free will or an attempt to say that that's not evidence at all. It sounds like you're arguing for the latter, but for the sake of your argument I hope you are arguing the former. I take it to be obvious that the imagined Galilean rebuttal I alluded to earlier would be justified even if Galileo could not name the mechanism of earth's motion, which he could not.
This is why conceivability must be taken as at least defeasible evidence even in the absence of a known mechanism. It represents a helpful guide to what possibilities can be considered open for the purposes of constructing scientific theories. We obviously cannot already know what the mechanisms are before such a theory is arrived upon.
My argument is that conceivability is only evidence of possibility provided that mechanism is included in the definition of conceivability. Without mechanism included it is a useless measurement since in that case anything can be conceived of, including things which we already know to be incoherent/impossible.
I should clarify and say that knowing the exact mechanism is not necessary. It only has to be an idea which is consistent with current knowledge (excepting any knowledge it might be challenging) and makes no logical fallacies. A scientific hypothesis is a perfect example of this. Some are right and some are wrong, but they all make sense at first (all the good ones anyway), although later on hindsight will make the incorrect ones look silly.
To use your Galileo example: Galileo would be justified in thinking that the Earth was in motion provided that he had some evidence that this was the case. If his justification was as simple as 'I can imagine the Earth in motion' then his belief that the Earth is in motion would be irrational, regardless of the fact that he 'conceived' of it (by your definition of conceive.. or what I interpret it to be anyway) and regardless of its actual correctness. Likewise, a belief that libertarian free will is metaphysically possible is irrational unless you have good evidence to believe that to be the case.
I mean, you still haven't said how you think libertarian free will might be metaphysically possible. I doubt you can even imagine a world in which libertarian free will exists. Thus far, your 'conception' of libertarian free will being metaphysically possible has gone as far as saying that libertarian free will could be metaphysically possible. Don't you see how inane 'conceiving' of something becomes if that is all that is required?
I hope you get what I'm saying now, although I still think my original reply to you was my best explanation, it being the most within the context I intended.
To be clear, I think that Galileo conceiving that is evidence for its possibility, not evidence for it being the case. There were those in his time who thought not only that it was false but that it was impossible.
I think that our disagreement concerning the importance of mechanism might boil down to a far more fundamental disagreement between us. Metaphysically, I lean towards the view that there are no mechanisms at the fundamental level. That is, I think that all modal notions are ultimately grounded in non-modal features of reality. Here's the flavor of this view.
(A) A World without Hooks (No Primitive Mechanisms)
I do not think that laws of nature are anything over and above the history of the universe, where the latter records the positions and intrinsic qualitative properties of every object in the universe over its entire existence. Rather, I hold a best systems account according to which the laws of nature are those true generalizations about the history of the universe that have the best combination of simplicity and strength.
Simplicity can be taken intuitively; strength is a measure of the information that can be derived by a given set of true generalizations (we're treating them sort of like axioms). Adding in the proposition that for all x, if x is Barrack Obama at noon on April 1st 2012 then x is eating a ham sandwich (supposing this statement true) would add only a tiny bit of strength while detracting greatly from simplicity. It would not be included in the laws.
Using the laws of nature derived here, one can account for many other modal notions such as those involving causation and counterfactuals. There is probably some left over modality, involving for instance metaphysically but not physically possible worlds, and I'd have to deal with this separately. I'm less settled on what to do here, but lean towards something roughly in accord with what Ted Sider does in his latest book (it's sort of like a rigidified conventionalism if you're familiar with this kind of thing).
(B) Why I Think That and Why it Matters to Our Debate
Why is any of this relevant? Because I don't think very much of the notion of a mechanism, and I am at least as unable to understand physical mechanisms as you are unable to understand the mechanisms of libertarian free will. I look at the world and see a sequence events. I do not see any causal hooks between those events and over and above those events. This isn't to say that I don't see causes, just that I reduce them to non-causal things.
This presumably all sounds very Humean, and in a sense it is. But my reasons for holding it are very different from Hume's. Hume was motivated by his empiricism and his copy principle according to which every idea is composed out of copies of previous sensory impressions. Since he could not locate causal hooks in any of those impressions, he was a skeptic about those hooks existing and about our being able to have any well-formed understanding of what robust causality (as opposed to mere constant conjunction) would be like.
I am not an empiricist. My reason for avoiding primitive modality is essentially the same as my reason for being an atheist. Theories according to which, say, laws are something over and above the history of the universe are proposed to explain why certain generalities are true, but all they end up doing is pushing the demand for explanation one step back. They are an unexplained explainer that leave one with no greater understanding of the phenomenon than one had before. It's similar to my rejection of the cosmological argument for God. If God does not require a cause, then neither does the universe, so positing God has not added any new understanding. I thus reject both God and primitive modality for simplicity or Ockham's razor type concerns.
But I cannot reject as incoherent the idea that the world has fundamental modality that I cannot understand any more than I can reject the idea that one of those fundamental mechanisms is a libertarian free will mechanism. There are reasons for doubting both, and I do doubt both, but the theories are at least coherent.
I don't think I can add very much to my first response concerning the main body of your post. I lean towards physicalism and did not quite understand your argument for monism. Of course, physcalism is a type of monism, but I gathered that you were talking about something more along the lines of what's called "Russellian Monism."
As for why people believe in a robust version of free will, I definitely agree that epistemic openness is a large part of it. I would add that the Libet findings indicate another reason for belief in free will. That is, our consciousness seems more relevant to the production of our actions than it actually is because we become aware of how we are about to act slightly before we perceive ourselves acting that way. They've actually done studies in which they've abused this mechanism to trick people into thinking they exercised their will in cases in which they clearly did not.
Ok, this is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. So I'll drop my two cents in here.
Does free will exist? No. We make millions thousands of choices every day, but these choices are already pre-determined. We make decisions based on two things, genetics and past experiences. You can not control your genetics and you can not control you past decisions, therefore you can not control your decisions. When you make a choice your brain is recounting experiences that have happened in the past that relate to your current decision. Using the outcomes you've experienced in the past, and your general feeling towards each choice (again determined by outcomes and results from the past) you "make" your decision. You are not out of the blue making some kind of "arbitrary choice", the choice has already been made based on million and millions of stimuli you've experienced before that point. And each of those stimuli was predetermined as well, because if you trace it back the people in those positions before you, like your parents, would have encountered the same "choice" evaluations as you have before, which in turn were affected by previous stimuli beforehand.
In my mind a choice comes down to this: Presented with option ----> remember similiar/applicable situations from the past ----> determine if they benefit you or not ------> choose most beneficial, or least harmful option
Everything you do comes down to selfish desire. Some might try and argue, "well what about a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, how is that selfish?" A) Because the mother doesn't want to endure in the pain, regret, and agony of having lost her child. B) Motherly instinct, it is how our species has survived. So if everything comes down to making the choices that are best for ourselves, it simply becomes a matter of deciding which option is best for ourselves after evaluating past experiences. There is no choice. One option i simply better than the other.
What about situations where there is no clear benefit? ie choose a number, 1 or 2? Your brain then picks one based on seemingly random or meaningless experience from the past. -Maybe the last number you saw was 2 so you choose that -Maybe your favorite number is 2 so you pick it -Maybe your favorite number is 2 but you have recently been unhappy with yourself, so you choose 1 -Maybe you are disinterested in the question and pick 1 because it was the first number you read -Maybe you pick 2 because it was the last number you read
There is a reason for every choice, and those reasons are what take away those choice and free-will altogether. Since the reasons already exist behind each choice, we are making no choices on our own.
On March 10 2012 11:24 Hypertension wrote: The problem with quantum fluctuation = free will is the random nature of it. If quantum fluctuations are where free will lives, this means we should be able to impact quantum fluctuations somehow with our willpower. This makes them predictable,and no longer random. If they are truly random, then we can't put our will upon them. In that case free will dissapears and we are again slave to random quantum fluctuations in comibination with the endless march of cause and effect. I don't think religion has to impact on this argument. An omnipotent, omniscient god poses many more problems for free will than a purely physical universe ever could.
I always check these types of threads to have a laugh with arguments like this. This type of high rethoric really reminds me of defenders of communism/creationism, they think they are right only because their words are so complex that only they understand. You are not a unique snowflake.
What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
On March 10 2012 11:24 Hypertension wrote: The problem with quantum fluctuation = free will is the random nature of it. If quantum fluctuations are where free will lives, this means we should be able to impact quantum fluctuations somehow with our willpower. This makes them predictable,and no longer random. If they are truly random, then we can't put our will upon them. In that case free will dissapears and we are again slave to random quantum fluctuations in comibination with the endless march of cause and effect. I don't think religion has to impact on this argument. An omnipotent, omniscient god poses many more problems for free will than a purely physical universe ever could.
I always check these types of threads to have a laugh with arguments like this. This type of high rethoric really reminds me of defenders of communism/creationism, they think they are right only because their words are so complex that only they understand. You are not a unique snowflake.
dude you need to chill. it was just yesterday that you posted the same type of nonsense in the "freewill and modern science" thread where you ridiculed my post and tried to make me look like an idiot without actually addressing anything related to the topic. i thought his post was perfectly clear and understandable...
i assume he's talking about the argument that the possibility of random events in the quantum world means that not everything is predetermined, and if nothing is predetermined then that might leave room for freewill to exist. however, as he pointed out, if something is random then by definition we dont have any control over it otherwise it wouldnt be random.
So to those that are better versed in these concepts than myself what explains things like behavioral patterns or hobbies. For instance why do I "choose", or perhaps better phrased as "end-up" running twice a day every day at consistent times, deciding to do different workouts based on a training plan I have built for myself based on knowledge I have acquired? This certainly doesn't sound like it squares with a random process and if it isn't random what would be the mechanism for behavioral patterns?
Also, what would explain why if you gave people a gun and told them to shoot themselves they would consistently and almost universally fail to do so, but if you offered the,1 billion no strings attached they would universally accept it. If it's not come level of conscious choice or will, what then accounts for these consistent choices?
I study a new field of space-time geometry that describes the universe in 3 dimensions of spatial dilation. (THERE WILL NOT BE A TEST!)
However in order to define those perceptions you need to define an observer Tau(0) which is effectively the one and only YOU. The fact that intrinsically I can predict anything is shadowed by the fact that there is one unique variable that defines the laws of physics. I always thought philosophically that my ignorance is the definition of free will and my knowledge is physics.
This certainly doesn't sound like it squares with a random process and if it isn't random what would be the mechanism for behavioral patterns?
It could at start still be random, and after that some mechanism emphasises repetition to a certain degree of your decission if you are satisfied with the results of your random decission. Survival of the fittest combined with learning from our ancestors (repetition) could weed out "bad" behavioural paterns.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
Actually I'm rather confused about the way consciousness works. Let's say you are going to meet me at 5:00 under the old oak tree. Now there must be some physical and chemical things going on in my brain that not only understands that information, but stores it so that at 445 I can run out the door. It must be distinctly different physical thing from, say, meeting you at 4:30.
But the shear space of information is enormous. If I imagine a cat, it's different than a dog. The space of information, including abstract ideas is even larger than the trillions of combinations of reactions that must occur in the brain. It's mind boggling, which I suppose is ironic. I don't understand how that's supposed to work out.
What does free will have to do with Religion? Religion is BS and all of it's ''truthfulness'' was debunked decades ago, you must have been brainwashed from your childhood by your parents or you've very stupid/non-critical/so open minded that your brain is almost falling out from your skull.
Please, it is the 21st century, not the bronze age.
On March 23 2012 11:53 itkovian wrote: Ok, this is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. So I'll drop my two cents in here.
Does free will exist? No. We make millions thousands of choices every day, but these choices are already pre-determined. We make decisions based on two things, genetics and past experiences. You can not control your genetics and you can not control you past decisions, therefore you can not control your decisions. When you make a choice your brain is recounting experiences that have happened in the past that relate to your current decision. Using the outcomes you've experienced in the past, and your general feeling towards each choice (again determined by outcomes and results from the past) you "make" your decision. You are not out of the blue making some kind of "arbitrary choice", the choice has already been made based on million and millions of stimuli you've experienced before that point. And each of those stimuli was predetermined as well, because if you trace it back the people in those positions before you, like your parents, would have encountered the same "choice" evaluations as you have before, which in turn were affected by previous stimuli beforehand.
In my mind a choice comes down to this: Presented with option ----> remember similiar/applicable situations from the past ----> determine if they benefit you or not ------> choose most beneficial, or least harmful option
Everything you do comes down to selfish desire. Some might try and argue, "well what about a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, how is that selfish?" A) Because the mother doesn't want to endure in the pain, regret, and agony of having lost her child. B) Motherly instinct, it is how our species has survived. So if everything comes down to making the choices that are best for ourselves, it simply becomes a matter of deciding which option is best for ourselves after evaluating past experiences. There is no choice. One option i simply better than the other.
What about situations where there is no clear benefit? ie choose a number, 1 or 2? Your brain then picks one based on seemingly random or meaningless experience from the past. -Maybe the last number you saw was 2 so you choose that -Maybe your favorite number is 2 so you pick it -Maybe your favorite number is 2 but you have recently been unhappy with yourself, so you choose 1 -Maybe you are disinterested in the question and pick 1 because it was the first number you read -Maybe you pick 2 because it was the last number you read
There is a reason for every choice, and those reasons are what take away those choice and free-will altogether. Since the reasons already exist behind each choice, we are making no choices on our own.
I should say that the above post is practically spot on with my own conclusions on the subject.
Schopenhauer once remarked something rather similar in spirit: "You may do as you please, but can you please as you please?". Indeed, choosing to wear red rather than blue seems, at least naively, to be an irrefutable demonstration of free choice. One simply does what one wants. But, does one choose to want what one wants? It's clear that given a set of desires one will act in such a way as to fulfill them, but it's far from clear that one has the liberty to explicitly choose those set of things which they desire.
Example: You choose to eat pizza rather than cabbage. Explanation: You chose pizza because you wanted to; it tastes better. The caveat is to understand why you desired pizza rather than cabbage. Are you in control of choosing to enjoy pizza more than you enjoy cabbage? Can you suddenly choose to enjoy cabbage more...at will... or is this an intrinsic desire, over which you have little to no control? Note that even if one had some amount of control to change their set of desires, that would require some other desire to invoke this change (for example, to prove that you have free will).
As a result, we make decisions based on a set of (possibly changing) desires, over which we ultimately have no control. Hence, there is indeed a reason for every choice, and such reasons are very interesting to examine. It tells you what kinds of things influence your set of desires, or why you enjoy certain things. We are not a wholly separated entities existing independently of the world around us, as if in some vacuum. Instead, we are intimately coupled to our environment, being both affected and affecting. Ironically, believing in free will immediately closes the door and ends the conversation short on this kind of deep examination of the self.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will.
Is there really enough known about how our bodies and brains function to make any non-ignorant claim one way or the other? Everything I'm reading in this thread, for either side, is just the various bits of logic that each person has intuitively decided is correct. Just because something is logical and feels correct intuitively doesn't make it correct. That's the exact opposite of science. Ironically, the arguements in this thread give me the same vibe as the "it's logical so it must be true" creationist arguments like the chicken and the egg, or the "machines and the human body are both complex so they must both be created!" stuff.
On March 23 2012 11:53 itkovian wrote:...
Everything you do comes down to selfish desire. Some might try and argue, "well what about a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, how is that selfish?" A) Because the mother doesn't want to endure in the pain, regret, and agony of having lost her child. B) Motherly instinct, it is how our species has survived. So if everything comes down to making the choices that are best for ourselves, it simply becomes a matter of deciding which option is best for ourselves after evaluating past experiences. There is no choice. One option i simply better than the other.
...
Isn't selfishness favoring one's own benefit over the benefits of others?
Let's say that in some context there are two possible situations. Which situation come to be depends on one person's action. With one action, the person will benefit to lets say a degree of 10, and others will also benefit. With the other action, that person benefits to a degree of 50, but at the cost of all benefit to the others. There is a real blatant distinction between the two outcomes, and the word used to decribe the difference is selfishness. Just because there is personal incentive to do something does not mean that doing it is selfish. That would make the word redundant. Benefitng yourself emotionally by benefiting others is the opposite of selfish.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will.
But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen?
On March 29 2012 02:56 Zanazuah wrote: What does free will have to do with Religion? Religion is BS and all of it's ''truthfulness'' was debunked decades ago, you must have been brainwashed from your childhood by your parents or you've very stupid/non-critical/so open minded that your brain is almost falling out from your skull.
Please, it is the 21st century, not the bronze age.
User was temp banned for this post.
While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other
If you want a group to troll, go tell atheists that you can't spell "atheist" without "a theist". They get really really angry and start throwing wikipedia articles about black holes or dark matter or w/e else at you. Personally I'd never take any group that is so fanatical/insulting to others/self righteous seriously.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will.
But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen?
The actual mechanism is unknown, but physics suggests that it can't possibly be predetermined.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will.
But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen?
The actual mechanism is unknown, but physics suggests that it can't possibly be predetermined.
What are you talking about? What physics possibly suggests this can't be predetermined? If you're talking about quantum physics then that's not how it works.
While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other
As far as I can see, agnostics are just atheists that don't want to be associated with atheists (and they just see atheists as arrogant or 'just as arrogant as theists'). Just because there are atheists that are jerks doesn't mean all atheists are jerks. Atheism is just lack of belief in a deity or the supernatural.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will.
But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen?
The actual mechanism is unknown, but physics suggests that it can't possibly be predetermined.
What are you talking about? What physics possibly suggests this can't be predetermined? If you're talking about quantum physics then that's not how it works.
While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other
As far as I can see, agnostics are just atheists that don't want to be associated with atheists (and they just see atheists as arrogant or 'just as arrogant as theists'). Just because there are atheists that are jerks doesn't mean all atheists are jerks. Atheism is just lack of belief in a deity or the supernatural.
Go ahead and tell Michio Kaku that's not how the physics works.
On March 23 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: What is a decision? With regards to physics, it's nothing more than some form of physical or chemical reaction taking place among the particles that compose your brain. So, why does this matter?
Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle would suggest that the way those reactions occur means that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, because the way these reactions occur are not predetermined.
Regardless, there's no evidence that we don't have free will, and there's tons of evidence that we do have free will, so any sort of argument that our supposed free will decisions are forced by some kind of outside force is baseless and arguing from a position on the same level as arguing for the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It seems you have it the wrong way around: arguing that we have "free will" is to argue that physics is "forced by some kind of outside force".
What is free will? It is the ability to make decisions that aren't forced. No results are forced, because multiple possibilities exist. Therefore, we have free will.
But what is "making" this decision? How does that happen?
The actual mechanism is unknown, but physics suggests that it can't possibly be predetermined.
What are you talking about? What physics possibly suggests this can't be predetermined? If you're talking about quantum physics then that's not how it works.
While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other
As far as I can see, agnostics are just atheists that don't want to be associated with atheists (and they just see atheists as arrogant or 'just as arrogant as theists'). Just because there are atheists that are jerks doesn't mean all atheists are jerks. Atheism is just lack of belief in a deity or the supernatural.
Go ahead and tell Michio Kaku that's not how the physics works.
Okay. That's not how it works.
Probablistic uncertainties is not nearly the same thing as indeterministic, anyway. You can't just say "Oh there's uncertainty, so anything goes!" No, absolutely not. What a ridiculous idea. Even if it's "50% here, 50% there," that is no where remotely close to indeterministic. Especially not once you jump to the cellular level.
The idea that things are actually fundamentally uncertain is an outdated belief of quantum mechanics. We have a much better idea of what happens on the quantum level now. The appearance of probabilistic behavior just means that there is the appearance of probabilistic behavior. Here's a pretty good explanation of it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better?
What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality.
It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ.
And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity.
On March 29 2012 09:38 Half wrote: ...what the hell is going on here?...
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better?
What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality.
It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ.
And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity.
All of this becomes condensed into...
Yeah, man has free will, fuck you .
What?
Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely.
I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here?
So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly?
On March 29 2012 09:38 Half wrote: ...what the hell is going on here?...
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better?
What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality.
It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ.
And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity.
All of this becomes condensed into...
Yeah, man has free will, fuck you .
What?
Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely.
I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here?
So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly?
I don't toss out Atheism, I toss out a lot of current trends in Atheism which I kinda despise. Namely, the gnostic part.
I'm saying I dislike the entire pretext of this discussion. It wholly reminds of debates about predestination or something in another phase of western thought.
The arguments shouldn't be focusing on scientific explanations that we live in a deterministic universe. First of all, its an unknown. Sure, we can argue until we're blue in the face on the current positions of our scientific establishment, but the fact of the matter is, we're not part of it, and even if we are, we don't speak for it, and its authority on such a cutting edge feild basically last as long until the next big name dicovery from CERN or something. Its rediculous to play along with an argument that at its heart, rests a fundementally flawed and undefined premise. What is free will?
At the heart, I'm saying this entire course of conversation is inherently deceitful, and I don't understand why people play along. It really has nothing to do with science, and people have been debating such a topic forever.
On March 29 2012 09:38 Half wrote: ...what the hell is going on here?...
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better?
What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality.
It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ.
And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity.
All of this becomes condensed into...
Yeah, man has free will, fuck you .
What?
Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely.
I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here?
So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly?
I don't toss out Atheism, I toss out a lot of current trends in Atheism which I kinda despise. Namely, the gnostic part.
I'm saying I dislike the entire pretext of this discussion. It wholly reminds of debates about predestination or something in another phase of western thought.
The arguments shouldn't be focusing on scientific explanations that we live in a deterministic universe. First of all, its an unknown. Sure, we can argue until we're blue in the face on the current positions of our scientific establishment, but the fact of the matter is, we're not part of it, and even if we are, we don't speak for it, and its authority on such a cutting edge feild basically last as long until the next big name dicovery from CERN or something.
At the heart, I'm saying this entire course of conversation is inherently deceitful, and I don't understand why people play along. It really has nothing to do with science, and people have been debating such a topic forever.
Sigh. Just because something is uncertain does not mean you can't make claims about it. Absolute certainty is incredibly difficult, if even possible. We know a lot more about how the world works. You can still talk about what is likely and unlikely, what is probable or improbable, given the information we do have.
Atheism is the same thing. Just because we don't have complete information does not mean we can't make claims about it. We can talk about what is likely and unlikely based on the information we have. We do have a lot of information.
On March 29 2012 09:38 Half wrote: ...what the hell is going on here?...
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better?
What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality.
It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ.
And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity.
All of this becomes condensed into...
Yeah, man has free will, fuck you .
What?
Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely.
I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here?
So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly?
I don't toss out Atheism, I toss out a lot of current trends in Atheism which I kinda despise. Namely, the gnostic part.
I'm saying I dislike the entire pretext of this discussion. It wholly reminds of debates about predestination or something in another phase of western thought.
The arguments shouldn't be focusing on scientific explanations that we live in a deterministic universe. First of all, its an unknown. Sure, we can argue until we're blue in the face on the current positions of our scientific establishment, but the fact of the matter is, we're not part of it, and even if we are, we don't speak for it, and its authority on such a cutting edge feild basically last as long until the next big name dicovery from CERN or something.
At the heart, I'm saying this entire course of conversation is inherently deceitful, and I don't understand why people play along. It really has nothing to do with science, and people have been debating such a topic forever.
Sigh. Just because something is uncertain does not mean you can't make claims about it. Absolute certainty is incredibly difficult, if even possible. We know a lot more about how the world works. You can still talk about what is likely and unlikely, what is probable or improbable, given the information we do have.
I'm starting to think you aren't understanding the point of any of my posts. Maybe this is my bad, I don't know.
I am saying that the conversation is bad because you're attempting to refute an absurd premise in a information based fashion. This is horribly innefficient, and also makes me think that a lot of people don't recognize the absurditiy, but simply have issues with it on a clerical level (the lack of evidence part).
I do not find issues with the "gnostic" interpretation free will because it does not exists. I do not find issues with it because we may, or may not, be living in a deterministic universe. Who can say? I find issues with it because the entire concept is absurd as tasting the color purple, it is not a logically cogent or consist thing that can be described, yet such a criticism of it hasn't even been made in this thread. This does not mean I am against it, I am against its existence as an idealogical phenomenon. I would like to see a world where we can see "free will" discussed as a matter of psychology and society, not as idealogy.
Gnostic atheism is what I refer to as Atheism that retains a lot of "magical" mental concepts that are fundementally spiritual beliefs, usually of gnostic origin. Quite a lot of them in this thread, every atheist here that defend free will, and probably half of them that are gainst it. Yes, it is contradictory, thats why I don't like it lol.
On March 29 2012 09:38 Half wrote: ...what the hell is going on here?...
Lets say the universe wasn't deterministic. What the hell do I know, I'm no quantum physist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just spelled that wrong. congratulations, your actions are now determined by a cosmic random number generator. Feel better?
What the hell is free will anyway? Dunno? Its just a solopistic idea that we possess divinity, a literal godiliness that allows are actions to infinitely sovereign, stemming from a source ingrained into the intrinsic fabric of time in space. Its the idea your mind has to be magical, some kind of magical force steming from the "self" that will allow you to accomplish some kind of magic "inner potential". All kinds of this gnostic bs spirituality.
It isn't that free will exists or it doesn't exist. Its that the very concept of free will is as illogical and magical as invisible pink unicorns. How can invisible objects have color anyway. Its quite literally, magic. Fuck, the idea is maybe 300 years old.Thats it. You might as well be arguing over the triumvirate nature of Jesus Christ.
And to the Atheists in this thread, you're being just as retarded. When we move past the the gnostic bs, when we move past the magic, we reach another question, is man in control of his actions, or is he controlled by his enviroment. Devoid of spirituality, the question quickly becomes politics. Should man control his own actions, or should he be controled of his enviroment. All of a sudden, the retarded abstractions fade away into a stunning clarity.
All of this becomes condensed into...
Yeah, man has free will, fuck you .
What?
Free will is terribly defined, so sure, we have free will. But determinism is likely true. I don't really see why they have to be opposed. We are creatures that react to not only each other, not only speech and language, but we also react to information and abstract concepts. I don't even understand how that's supposed to make sense in deterministic world, personally. That's where I think the main wrench in the whole thing comes in, but it's still likely.
I mean come on, determinism is saying that your entire consciousness is determined. How the hell could you possibly tell the difference? Who cares if there even is a difference? When you make a decision, you still make a decision, so what exactly is the problem here?
So did you just toss out atheism and gnosticism in the same post? What's left, exactly?
I don't toss out Atheism, I toss out a lot of current trends in Atheism which I kinda despise. Namely, the gnostic part.
I'm saying I dislike the entire pretext of this discussion. It wholly reminds of debates about predestination or something in another phase of western thought.
The arguments shouldn't be focusing on scientific explanations that we live in a deterministic universe. First of all, its an unknown. Sure, we can argue until we're blue in the face on the current positions of our scientific establishment, but the fact of the matter is, we're not part of it, and even if we are, we don't speak for it, and its authority on such a cutting edge feild basically last as long until the next big name dicovery from CERN or something.
At the heart, I'm saying this entire course of conversation is inherently deceitful, and I don't understand why people play along. It really has nothing to do with science, and people have been debating such a topic forever.
Sigh. Just because something is uncertain does not mean you can't make claims about it. Absolute certainty is incredibly difficult, if even possible. We know a lot more about how the world works. You can still talk about what is likely and unlikely, what is probable or improbable, given the information we do have.
I'm starting to think you aren't understanding the point of any of my posts. Maybe this is my bad, I don't know.
I am saying that the conversation is bad because you're attempting to refute an absurd premise in a information based fashion. This is horribly innefficient, and also makes me think that a lot of people don't recognize the absurditiy, but simply have issues with it on a clerical level (the lack of evidence part).
I do not find issues with the "gnostic" interpretation free will because it does not exists. I do not find issues with it because we may, or may not, living in a deterministic universe. Who can say? I find issues with it because the entire concept is absurd as tasting the color purple, it is not a logically cogent or consist thing that can be described, yet such a criticism of it hasn't even been made in this thread. This does not mean I am against it, I am against its existence as an idealogical phenomenon. I would like to see a world where we can see "free will" discussed as a matter of psychology and society, not as idealogy.
Gnostic atheism is what I refer to as Atheism that retains a lot of "magical" mental concepts that are fundementally spiritual beliefs, usually of gnostic origin. Quite a lot of them in this thread, every atheist here that defend free will, and probably half of them that are gainst it. Yes, it is contradictory, thats why I don't like it lol.
I'm out. See sig.
Oh. Okay, after reading that a few times I think I understand. I guess we agree then? I think?
"In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic." (wikipedia)
Indeterminism doesn't really prove that free will exists, either, though. Suppose the world is indeterminant. Then it's possible that NONE of your actions are under your control - they are completely arbitrary. In order to prove free will, you would have to have some sort of strange agent that operates outside of both arbitary (or probabilistic) action and determined action. I'm not sure if such a thing is even conceivable.
There are limits to what any monolith of knowledge (or power) can know for certain. In a way, Hegel's history still applies here: all these process of uncertainty and discovery is emrely an unfolding of the primordial absolute mind. It so happens we are in an era of science and science has no choice but to define all materiality, even those that are normally assigned to metaphysics, as concerns of its province, this time, namely, free will.
I understand and do not object to physicists and general positicist scientists to proceed with this undertaking. What I would like to propose however is even if such knowledge is novel, it is not final, not even definitive. If science decides to pursue the question of free will in the manner that it does now, it will be reduced to nothing more than theology, in the same manner that theoretical physicist now are approaching the question of time and quantum physics. Free will, for now, remains strongly in the domain of the humanities and social sciences.
Suppose for a second we have free-will, then, well, we have free will, and what we do is of our own doing, and it's our fault.
Okay, now assume that everything is determined, and that that initial "Big Bang" event set off a chain reaction that led to me typing this now. We have no control, except that provided by the illusion of power, which is inconstant and nonexistent.
Now that we've outlined our possibilities, let's go for a scenario! You wake up one morning and have (or you appear to have, at least) a choice ahead of you. You must decide to wear a red shirt or a blue shirt. Here's where I lose the ability to concisely articulate what I mean, but let's try anyways. No matter what, be it by your choice, or by some divine (or mundane) intervention, you will pick what you pick. You will ALWAYS pick one option, and that option will ALWAYS be the one you picked.
"So the outcome is the same, you're not arguing for either point. Seriously, wtf, noob, pick one or gtfo"
I'm getting there. In my opinion, the crux of the argument comes down to how you perceive time itself. Now, there are two very commonly held views on time, one being a single timestream, symbolized by a line, and the 'multiverse' idea, symbolized by a branched line (or tree). In the line, there is only one way for events to play out, but in the tree, you can go down one of a million different routes, and that leads to many (seemingly) different outcomes.
"Wait, you just contradicted yourself"
Nope, not really, in the tree model, even though there are many different avenues that time could go down, you will only ever SEE one of them, so you will still have only picked one shirt. Even if there is a "Doppelganger" you who picked the other shirt, you will never know or experience it.
Okay, so basically, in the multiverse idea, you can choose your path, but in the universe, it's set (I use these terms out of lack of better ones, I apologize). So, really, it depends on how you view the inner workings of the way the world proceeds.
Personally, I believe in a hybrid of the two, where the branches exist only as stubs (as if the tree had been trimmed), and there is only one path to the present, but there WERE choices along the way. But I'm weird, so....
On March 23 2012 11:53 itkovian wrote: Ok, this is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. So I'll drop my two cents in here.
Does free will exist? No. We make millions thousands of choices every day, but these choices are already pre-determined. We make decisions based on two things, genetics and past experiences. You can not control your genetics and you can not control you past decisions, therefore you can not control your decisions. When you make a choice your brain is recounting experiences that have happened in the past that relate to your current decision. Using the outcomes you've experienced in the past, and your general feeling towards each choice (again determined by outcomes and results from the past) you "make" your decision. You are not out of the blue making some kind of "arbitrary choice", the choice has already been made based on million and millions of stimuli you've experienced before that point. And each of those stimuli was predetermined as well, because if you trace it back the people in those positions before you, like your parents, would have encountered the same "choice" evaluations as you have before, which in turn were affected by previous stimuli beforehand.
In my mind a choice comes down to this: Presented with option ----> remember similiar/applicable situations from the past ----> determine if they benefit you or not ------> choose most beneficial, or least harmful option
Everything you do comes down to selfish desire. Some might try and argue, "well what about a mother who sacrifices herself for her child, how is that selfish?" A) Because the mother doesn't want to endure in the pain, regret, and agony of having lost her child. B) Motherly instinct, it is how our species has survived. So if everything comes down to making the choices that are best for ourselves, it simply becomes a matter of deciding which option is best for ourselves after evaluating past experiences. There is no choice. One option i simply better than the other.
What about situations where there is no clear benefit? ie choose a number, 1 or 2? Your brain then picks one based on seemingly random or meaningless experience from the past. -Maybe the last number you saw was 2 so you choose that -Maybe your favorite number is 2 so you pick it -Maybe your favorite number is 2 but you have recently been unhappy with yourself, so you choose 1 -Maybe you are disinterested in the question and pick 1 because it was the first number you read -Maybe you pick 2 because it was the last number you read
There is a reason for every choice, and those reasons are what take away those choice and free-will altogether. Since the reasons already exist behind each choice, we are making no choices on our own.
I should say that the above post is practically spot on with my own conclusions on the subject.
Schopenhauer once remarked something rather similar in spirit: "You may do as you please, but can you please as you please?". Indeed, choosing to wear red rather than blue seems, at least naively, to be an irrefutable demonstration of free choice. One simply does what one wants. But, does one choose to want what one wants? It's clear that given a set of desires one will act in such a way as to fulfill them, but it's far from clear that one has the liberty to explicitly choose those set of things which they desire.
Example: You choose to eat pizza rather than cabbage. Explanation: You chose pizza because you wanted to; it tastes better. The caveat is to understand why you desired pizza rather than cabbage. Are you in control of choosing to enjoy pizza more than you enjoy cabbage? Can you suddenly choose to enjoy cabbage more...at will... or is this an intrinsic desire, over which you have little to no control? Note that even if one had some amount of control to change their set of desires, that would require some other desire to invoke this change (for example, to prove that you have free will).
As a result, we make decisions based on a set of (possibly changing) desires, over which we ultimately have no control. Hence, there is indeed a reason for every choice, and such reasons are very interesting to examine. It tells you what kinds of things influence your set of desires, or why you enjoy certain things. We are not a wholly separated entities existing independently of the world around us, as if in some vacuum. Instead, we are intimately coupled to our environment, being both affected and affecting. Ironically, believing in free will immediately closes the door and ends the conversation short on this kind of deep examination of the self.
I followed a similar thought process, however I disagree with your conclusions. In my opinion free will is the ability to make a decision despite previous experiences/other factors, not without previous experiences and other factors. If you use the latter explanation of free will, as you have, then it is impossible to attain because obviously there will always be something that influences your decision.
As an example of free will in the way I suggested, say you are in a food court, you are trying to decide whether to eat McDonalds or Subway. You have a craving for McDonalds but you feel like you should be eating healthier so you consider subway. Yes there are reasons for choosing either, but ultimately you can choose which reasons you want to listen to.
In your example, Superliquid, you may not be able to choose to like pizza more than you like cabbage, but you can choose to listen to your desire for pizza or you can choose to ignore it and eat cabbage anyway.
Free Will according to Google's define (because Wikipedia's first line is quite vague) is -The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. To me this is not really in line with your definition of free will, if you chose pizza because you wanted to, not as a result of necessity or (unless you believe in determinism) fate, then it was still a perfectly free choice.
Schopenhauer actually believed the will was free. But not in the sense that you and I think of freedom, and for him the Will is actually a transcendental object. The Will is free in the sense that it is always free to act. But freedom to act is not the same as freedom to choose what one wills. Within presentation the principle of sufficient ground holds that all actions have a reason, and the world was completely deterministic according to him (within presentation, of course).
We can will what we want, but we cannot will what we will.
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?
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?
How much space would a machine need to map every particle in the universe? A universe worth? What about quarks?
Isn't quantum theory disproving the possibility of a (pre)determined universe? The thing with there is a tinytiny possibility that every single atom is everywhere and there is every single way possible to get from point a to b (although very very unlikely). There was this Feynmann double slit experiment, no?
I prefer to belive in Free Will from a philosophical stand-point. I do not like having my future (and all future) already determined. Simply because of the consequences involved.
On May 30 2012 20:07 Szordrin wrote: Isn't quantum theory disproving the possibility of a (pre)determined universe? The thing with there is a tinytiny possibility that every single atom is everywhere and there is every single way possible to get from point a to b (although very very unlikely). There was this Feynmann double slit experiment, no?
I prefer to belive in Free Will from a philosophical stand-point. I do not like having my future (and all future) already determined. Simply because of the consequences involved.
While quantum theory does imply a non-deterministic universe, this doesn't mean that free will exists. Instead everything is fundamentally random, and the law of averages creates normal life. So your brain isn't deterministic, but nor does it have the capacity for true free will, its kinda on a cosmic RNG.
If we could create a parallel universe, where everything is set exactly in copy of the universe of the other, will the events in that universe plan out exactly the same as its original copy?
I don't have a terrific understanding of quantum mechanics, but can't the actions of the particles affect the events of the universe? (For example, a true RNG generates randomness by observing molecules at the quantum level). If a person wins a lottery through a true RNG, won't that change the event of the universe?
We can will what we want, but we cannot will what we will.
If we replicated the universe it would (as per quantum mechanics) turn out differently. I would suspect it has the potential to be quite different, as it would probably be very subjective to small changes early on. I think one would still expect a similar form, i.e. consisting of stars, planets, galaxies, etc, but much further speculation is pretty hard. :/
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?
Well you don't necessarily have to map out the universe. If you put someone in an enclosed room, with white walls, a table and a chair, and then two sandwiches that would do. Because you shouldn't need to know everything happening since the beginning of time, just everything that's happening in that room since the experiment starts.
The problem is once that machine tells you what sandwich you're going to eat, you're altering the experiment. You would have to ask the computer to make a new prediction given that additional factor - that this person is aware of the first prediction made. If that second prediction is kept secret then it should work as intended, by correctly predicting your choice.
Because a program can't model a situation that it is a part of and that affects the model...it could lead to an infinite loop of new decisions based on new predictions that in turn were effected by previous information given (etc.)
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?
You're arguing for the existance of free will by assuming that the person can "decide" to do otherwise. A proof where you start of by assuming that whatever you're proving is true is pointless. Also, to posses every piece of information in the universe you would inherently need to use the entire universe. You can't store the position, velocity, spin, charge etc. of the smallest particles on anything smaller than the smallest particles. They are, after all, the smallest . And the place of all electrons in the universe is probably important to include.
Neglecting the size, it makes more sense to remove the person from the experiment. If the machine itself was built move an object to either the left or the right. If it foresees the object moving to the left it should move it to the right and vice versa. Assume that the machine predicts it moving to the right. If the machine does the calculation including it's programming to move the object to the left should something move it to the right it would then make it move the object to the right, wich would force it to move it to the left etc. An endless computing loop that cannot end.
On March 29 2012 02:56 Zanazuah wrote: What does free will have to do with Religion? Religion is BS and all of it's ''truthfulness'' was debunked decades ago, you must have been brainwashed from your childhood by your parents or you've very stupid/non-critical/so open minded that your brain is almost falling out from your skull.
Please, it is the 21st century, not the bronze age.
User was temp banned for this post.
While I am annoyed by religious people that try to push religion onto others, those are far less rare and less annoying than this "holier than thou" atheistic 12 year old attitude that makes me give my head a shake. Am I the only person who doesn't like atheists because of the attitude that they love acting like that they're better than everyone else (while ironically citing cookie cutter regurgitated wikiScience)? Its kind of like a vegan telling meat eaters that they're unhealthy or a religious people telling non religious they're going to hell. Same shit different toilet, agnostic is the best choice imo. Chill out while crazy angry people yell at each other
If you want a group to troll, go tell atheists that you can't spell "atheist" without "a theist". They get really really angry and start throwing wikipedia articles about black holes or dark matter or w/e else at you. Personally I'd never take any group that is so fanatical/insulting to others/self righteous seriously.
If you live in a non-religious country and grow up without much contact with any religious people, it is sometimes very hard to not come up with the conclusion Zanazuah has (if he had not been trolling).Very few people will say this however as we are told to respect other peoples religious beliefs. But in quite a large minority (I think) of households you wont come across many datapoints pointing in other directions for quite a while.
And personally I think it is very hard to not think in the paths of brainwashing or people being very uncritical when they have positions with A LOT more details than "I don't think there is anything more" and "I think there is something more".
As far as the topic of the thread goes, I don't feel like I have free will. When someone asks me to think of a number, a number just pops up in my head I don't choose which one it is. And when I make a decision, the reasons I have to make that decision also seem to just pop in to my head. When I decide between several things that have popped into my head I can in all cases I've thought about follow the reason for why I decided as I did back to something else that just popped into my head.
I couldnt help but notice that many people here seem to think that free will can't exist (or at least is very unlikely). Here's why I think it can exist:
I think that free will is strongly connected to consciousness, and I'd like to start there. To me it seems evident that consciousness exists. And don't tell me that it is an illusion, that doesn't make any sense: In order to percieve consciousness, you must have consciousness. Cogito ergo sum, there's no way around that. Assuming that consciousness does exist, it is really no big step to free will, as consciousness is a concept that cannot be explained by current physics (it is even unclear what consciousness means, from a physics point of view). So why shouldn't we have free will, too?
Of course, maybe some day science will show how consciousness works and prove the above statement wrong. On the other hand, maybe it won't. For now, I choose to believe that there is more to this world than just physics (and by that I mean free will, not god) and defy the utter pointlessness of living a predetermined life.
Note: "utter pointlessness" is a bit hyperbolic. Even if everything is predetermined, we could still just "enjoy the show", see this piece of the Colbert Report
On May 30 2012 22:35 MadeOfCotton wrote: I couldnt help but notice that many people here seem to think that free will can't exist (or at least is very unlikely). Here's why I think it can exist:
I think that free will is strongly connected to consciousness, and I'd like to start there. To me it seems evident that consciousness exists. And don't tell me that it is an illusion, that doesn't make any sense: In order to percieve consciousness, you must have consciousness. Cogito ergo sum, there's no way around that. Assuming that consciousness does exist, it is really no big step to free will, as consciousness is a concept that cannot be explained by current physics (it is even unclear what consciousness means, from a physics point of view). So why shouldn't we have free will, too?
Of course, maybe some day science will show how consciousness works and prove the above statement wrong. On the other hand, maybe it won't. For now, I choose to believe that there is more to this world than just physics (and by that I mean free will, not god) and defy the utter pointlessness of living a predetermined life.
Note: "utter pointlessness" is a bit hyperbolic. Even if everything is predetermined, we could still just "enjoy the show", see this piece of the Colbert Report
Why does that make more sense than not believing in it? "Can't be explained must be supernatural" just seems poorly reasoned.
On May 30 2012 22:35 MadeOfCotton wrote: I couldnt help but notice that many people here seem to think that free will can't exist (or at least is very unlikely). Here's why I think it can exist:
I think that free will is strongly connected to consciousness, and I'd like to start there. To me it seems evident that consciousness exists. And don't tell me that it is an illusion, that doesn't make any sense: In order to percieve consciousness, you must have consciousness. Cogito ergo sum, there's no way around that. Assuming that consciousness does exist, it is really no big step to free will, as consciousness is a concept that cannot be explained by current physics (it is even unclear what consciousness means, from a physics point of view). So why shouldn't we have free will, too?
Of course, maybe some day science will show how consciousness works and prove the above statement wrong. On the other hand, maybe it won't. For now, I choose to believe that there is more to this world than just physics (and by that I mean free will, not god) and defy the utter pointlessness of living a predetermined life.
Note: "utter pointlessness" is a bit hyperbolic. Even if everything is predetermined, we could still just "enjoy the show", see this piece of the Colbert Report
You've said nothing more than there is somehow a relation between free will and consciousness, playing with semantics here and there.
Care to first define consciousness, then actually explain your point?
I kinda do agree with you. Manny scientists do argue btw that consiousness does not exists and that its merely and illusion/byproduct of our brain. But when we asume that consiousness does exists, then imo that also implies at least the possibility that a god exists,free will en god are extremely similar concepts when look at it abstractly. Our free will would then be a part of "God" or even a god of its own. I realy have alot of problems with this btw, as i still strongly believe in a free will but the possibility that god exists i find extremly unlikely. I dont know wich one to choose now, as i cant see them as fundamentally different atm:s
Consiousness is near impossible to define,its so vastly complex, it is strongly related to the concept of free will and the concept of God, the similarities are verry clear to me though i find it verry difficult to explain them, i guess you just "have to see it" (i might verry well see it wrong btw.) We can look at what free will is not. People earlier in this thread did this and it was determined that when everything is either caused or random (wich is our current understanding of the world, things are caused or random ) free will can not exists. Free will per definition cant have a physical cause or be random. (since then it wouldnt be a free will but simply the logical result of series of events, or a completely random event).
His point was that free will can exist and that it does not automatically imply the possibility that god exists. This is opposite of what my idea is and i find his post verry valuable. His second point is less relevant for me and was that even when everything is predetermined, that that still would not take away the value of living our lives, its more an opinnion.
On May 30 2012 22:48 seppolevne wrote: Why does that make more sense than not believing in it? "Can't be explained must be supernatural" just seems poorly reasoned.
Sorry, should have been more precise about that. My point wasn't that believing in it make's more sense, but rather that it does make at least some sense. That it is possible to believe in consciousness / free will being supernatural without being completely unreasonable.
On May 30 2012 22:49 EngrishTeacher wrote: You've said nothing more than there is somehow a relation between free will and consciousness, playing with semantics here and there.
Oh no, you got me^^ I'll try to elaborate a bit what I mean, but in the end i guess you're right, and it is more of a touchy-feely point I'm making.
On May 30 2012 22:49 EngrishTeacher wrote: Care to first define consciousness, then actually explain your point?
Wikipedia says this:
It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[2] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[3]
I would define it as the ability to experience our existence. I hope that cleats things up a bit My point is, that physics (from my understaning) doesn't explain consciousness, it can't even define it. Imagine two things that look exactly the same (down to the atom), but one experiences, feels, lives what happens to it, while the other one doesn't. In physics, there wouldn't be any difference between the two (as far as I currently understand it).
Now comes the part where my reasoning actually is really weak^^ It goes something like "it's plausible that there is something supernatural, so why shouldn't there be more supernatural". I know it's bad reasoning, but htat's what happens when you want to justify your beliefs^^ The long version goes like this: Lets assume for arguments sake, that my consciousness is an entity seperate from physical reality (in other words, that the consciousness is distinct from the laws of physics that we know of). Then there is some sort of communication between it and the physical world: One direction of this communication would obviously exist, that is from the physical world to the consciousness: I can touch something and be aware of it, feel it. The other direction would be free will. Its existence would kind of contradict physics now though, so my argument falls apart here xD. Still, it only "kind of" contradicts physics, as we really don't know enough yet to be sure. Also, quantum randomness always leaves a loophole, that our free will might control the randomness somehow. Further, physics says that weird things can happen when we don't look. Finally, physics is only a model for reality, not absolute truth.
Sure, these points don't really cut it. I guess what im trying to say is that it doesn't look good for our free will, but there is still room for belief, and we can get really close to justifying it
I've always thought of our lives be like a gigantic grid of lines that originate from a single spot and all converge on a single spot. Even though all the possible lines have already been mapped out for us, it's still up to us to choose which lines we wish to travel on. I think that each person's grid is different, but will have a lot of overlapping possiblities. However, we are limited to the possiblities that each grid is composed of. I don't believe we have free will to do anything, but I do believe we have the free will to travel down whichever line we want. I guess it's sort of a, "play with the hand your dealt with" philosphy.
On May 31 2012 02:26 MadeOfCotton wrote: I would define it as the ability to experience our existence. I hope that cleats things up a bit My point is, that physics (from my understaning) doesn't explain consciousness, it can't even define it. Imagine two things that look exactly the same (down to the atom), but one experiences, feels, lives what happens to it, while the other one doesn't. In physics, there wouldn't be any difference between the two (as far as I currently understand it).
Now comes the part where my reasoning actually is really weak^^ It goes something like "it's plausible that there is something supernatural, so why shouldn't there be more supernatural". I know it's bad reasoning, but htat's what happens when you want to justify your beliefs^^ The long version goes like this: Lets assume for arguments sake, that my consciousness is an entity seperate from physical reality (in other words, that the consciousness is distinct from the laws of physics that we know of). Then there is some sort of communication between it and the physical world: One direction of this communication would obviously exist, that is from the physical world to the consciousness: I can touch something and be aware of it, feel it. The other direction would be free will. Its existence would kind of contradict physics now though, so my argument falls apart here xD. Still, it only "kind of" contradicts physics, as we really don't know enough yet to be sure. Also, quantum randomness always leaves a loophole, that our free will might control the randomness somehow. Further, physics says that weird things can happen when we don't look. Finally, physics is only a model for reality, not absolute truth.
Sure, these points don't really cut it. I guess what im trying to say is that it doesn't look good for our free will, but there is still room for belief, and we can get really close to justifying it
Ok, I recently had a conversation that goes along these lines with a TAG apologist...
You can state that "for arguments sake" consciousness is separate from the physical world but that makes everything you just stated afterward meaningless. You must first demonstrate that any consciousness has ever existed absent of a brain in order for your point to stand. Every consciousness ever demonstrated has been a product of physical beings in a physical universe. If you want to demonstrate an "absolute truth" other than using physics and the real, observable, testable world then you must first demonstrate that something exists outside of it.
If I stipulate that consciousness is separate from physical existence then yes, you do have an argument to make. Your problem is, can you prove it can exist without the physical universe?
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 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 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 03:16 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 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 03:16 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 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 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
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.
You're giving God human characteristics and assuming that he's locked into the principles that we are bound by in this universe. God could be everything and anything, God could also be an entity outside of the universe that is "nothing". There is more than one definition for God and each persons definition is going to be different for the most part.
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.
You are stating a perfect quality in the negative. If God is all knowing and knows/predetermines the future in his perfectness then changing his mind would imply that the initial decision was sub-optimal or what he had not intended, which is inconsistent with his character.
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
Funny how it is simply a begging the question fallacy. You could simply assert "Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore Free Will" or "Russell's Teapot, therefore Free Will" if that's your argument...
Any serious person would actually have to quantify the claim that the entire argument is based on (IE prove God, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot exist and possess those qualities)...
There is independently verifiable, observable information. There are inferences based upon this information. This is one function of science. Yet there is still unknown information.
There are the attitudes one cultivates in order to deal with the realities of everyday life. There are the practices that have been developed to cultivate such attitudes. Religion has been one avenue to such practices. As in common sense. Yet there are still unhappy and ineffective people.
Are there knowledgeable people who say the evidence suggests there is no reason to suppose that free will exists? Yes. Will this knowledge help me persuade my roommates to do their dishes? No.
The universe as observed through advanced scientific instruments does not need free will to explain empirical phenomena.
Life as experienced through the human condition requires in many instances a presupposition of free will in order to be lived effectively.
This biochemical mass, for one, will continue to generate the electronic pulsations known as belief in free will in order to ensure an optimal and sustainable flow of biochemical reactions.
I had a discussion with the most interesting journalist the other day (who happened to be sitting in the ER for extremely similar reasons, waiting on our girlfriends who were in surgery or more specifically recovery at the time) and we first got into a debate between republicans and democrats and then moved into economy and power control across the world it was all extremely invigorating and up beat, throughout the conversation I was getting a vibe he was Christian and as such I pressed the topic as I am atheist and believed if we could talk civil about all aspects of life we surely can do the same for religion, other than being defensive it panned out
It all boiled down to a single topic, my argument was that God is either real and evil or imaginary because if you are all knowing and all controlling you would have a lot of trouble arguing for the purpose of painful deaths to children or people in general who lived a just and happy life and didn't bother anybody (this is completely negating the thousands that die from starving). He then said that it doesn't matter because those will move onto heaven and all will be great.
Knwoing that he was copping out I pressed the issue with regards to different religions. I asked how a true loving god could condemn the near billion hindu's in India for having their parents parents religion to a fire pit of death and pain and anguish in hell for believing in the wrong religion when in actuality it wasn't the fault of the childs childs child for being brought up that way to begin with as religion is almost always the choice of the parents or the present culture.
So I made ended it on 2 notes
One: (note, this related to an early discussion insanity vs beliving in god) It is hypocritical for any religious person (and there are many) to criticize or think differently of someone who believes in imaginary things such as anything (unicorns, trolls, elves) because they simply can say "faith" tells them it's true which is exactly what any religion is with a more fancy story and bigger following
Two: God is either evil and I feel myself destined to share the fate of billions and billions of other souls who lived relatively good lives feeding the poor when they could or carrying groceries for the elderly but were judged not on actions but on belief, or god is non-existent/not all powerful.
anyway, this is kinda a bump but i felt it related relative to the topic in the sense of religion although the topic is really related to free will vs determinism if I remember correctly from the past.I felt it prudent to put this here as I feel arguing either of those subjects (especially when Sam Harris is the writer, a anti-religion activist if you will, it fit rather well.
so what do u think? was I wrong or do you agree ^^? thanks
As a gigantic philosopher whose mushroom trips have taught me more than any sober man could ever come close to realizing, I dislike the argument of "Free will" vs "determinism" with a passion. In my college philosophy course where we were asked where we stood, I sat there and lawld to myself as all the idiots posed their pathetic little arguments. First of all, free will vs determinism = arbitrary vs arbitrary, therefore NEITHER exists. It's a random chaotic universe that determines itself, and for humans to have the ignorance and arrogance to think that they participate in any way form or fashion is retarded. Clearly molecules have gathered themselves in a random matter to create us human beings, but that doesnt mean it was "determined" that we would exist. Nor does it mean that since we are intelligent we have "free will". People who even argue for or against free will or determinism need a higher IQ. I scored 30/35 on the mensa practice test....
I wish i could access TL from my computer @ work so i wouldnt have to type this on my phone. I'll try to make it short for now.
1- You are half-rigth. It is hypocritical from beleivers to beleive in the genuine faith of other gods, divinity, spirits and so on. However, mystical creatures ( elves ,orc, unicorn),if they exist, should have a body, should eat ,and thus should have let traces of their existence. That is not the case for gods. Lastly, being hypocritical against pastafarians and/or beleivers in the invisible pink unicorn is okay imho because these "religions" were created in the only goal and making fun of other religions. You cannot do that and then ask to be take seriously
2- now we are going back to free will. Your argument implies that God makes all decisions and earth, and that us earthligs are just toy for him. I am going to disagree with that. God told us how we should live, he gave us a guide on how to behave (bible- coran .. etc). But he is not making decisions and/or actions for us. You decide what you do ,He doesnt. Therefore he can exist, and not be responsible for every action every single man.
This is a rather short answer, but hopefully it will give you some food for thought
On August 22 2012 15:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I had a discussion with the most interesting journalist the other day (who happened to be sitting in the ER for extremely similar reasons, waiting on our girlfriends who were in surgery or more specifically recovery at the time) and we first got into a debate between republicans and democrats and then moved into economy and power control across the world it was all extremely invigorating and up beat, throughout the conversation I was getting a vibe he was Christian and as such I pressed the topic as I am atheist and believed if we could talk civil about all aspects of life we surely can do the same for religion, other than being defensive it panned out
It all boiled down to a single topic, my argument was that God is either real and evil or imaginary because if you are all knowing and all controlling you would have a lot of trouble arguing for the purpose of painful deaths to children or people in general who lived a just and happy life and didn't bother anybody (this is completely negating the thousands that die from starving). He then said that it doesn't matter because those will move onto heaven and all will be great.
Knwoing that he was copping out I pressed the issue with regards to different religions. I asked how a true loving god could condemn the near billion hindu's in India for having their parents parents religion to a fire pit of death and pain and anguish in hell for believing in the wrong religion when in actuality it wasn't the fault of the childs childs child for being brought up that way to begin with as religion is almost always the choice of the parents or the present culture.
So I made ended it on 2 notes
One: (note, this related to an early discussion insanity vs beliving in god) It is hypocritical for any religious person (and there are many) to criticize or think differently of someone who believes in imaginary things such as anything (unicorns, trolls, elves) because they simply can say "faith" tells them it's true which is exactly what any religion is with a more fancy story and bigger following
Two: God is either evil and I feel myself destined to share the fate of billions and billions of other souls who lived relatively good lives feeding the poor when they could or carrying groceries for the elderly but were judged not on actions but on belief, or god is non-existent/not all powerful.
anyway, this is kinda a bump but i felt it related relative to the topic in the sense of religion although the topic is really related to free will vs determinism if I remember correctly from the past.I felt it prudent to put this here as I feel arguing either of those subjects (especially when Sam Harris is the writer, a anti-religion activist if you will, it fit rather well.
so what do u think? was I wrong or do you agree ^^? thanks
the most wide spread 'rebuttal' to that is that God has a purpose and since your logic/train of thought is subjective, you can't see the whole picture so you are not allowed to question Him. GG
I had a discussion with the most interesting journalist the other day (who happened to be sitting in the ER for extremely similar reasons, waiting on our girlfriends who were in surgery or more specifically recovery at the time) and we first got into a debate between republicans and democrats and then moved into economy and power control across the world it was all extremely invigorating and up beat, throughout the conversation I was getting a vibe he was Christian and as such I pressed the topic as I am atheist and believed if we could talk civil about all aspects of life we surely can do the same for religion, other than being defensive it panned out
It all boiled down to a single topic, my argument was that God is either real and evil or imaginary because if you are all knowing and all controlling you would have a lot of trouble arguing for the purpose of painful deaths to children or people in general who lived a just and happy life and didn't bother anybody (this is completely negating the thousands that die from starving). He then said that it doesn't matter because those will move onto heaven and all will be great.
Knwoing that he was copping out I pressed the issue with regards to different religions. I asked how a true loving god could condemn the near billion hindu's in India for having their parents parents religion to a fire pit of death and pain and anguish in hell for believing in the wrong religion when in actuality it wasn't the fault of the childs childs child for being brought up that way to begin with as religion is almost always the choice of the parents or the present culture.
So I made ended it on 2 notes
One: (note, this related to an early discussion insanity vs beliving in god) It is hypocritical for any religious person (and there are many) to criticize or think differently of someone who believes in imaginary things such as anything (unicorns, trolls, elves) because they simply can say "faith" tells them it's true which is exactly what any religion is with a more fancy story and bigger following
Two: God is either evil and I feel myself destined to share the fate of billions and billions of other souls who lived relatively good lives feeding the poor when they could or carrying groceries for the elderly but were judged not on actions but on belief, or god is non-existent/not all powerful.
anyway, this is kinda a bump but i felt it related relative to the topic in the sense of religion although the topic is really related to free will vs determinism if I remember correctly from the past.I felt it prudent to put this here as I feel arguing either of those subjects (especially when Sam Harris is the writer, a anti-religion activist if you will, it fit rather well.
so what do u think? was I wrong or do you agree ^^? thanks
One: I can explain my own religious views, but I'd rather not do it here since they're a bit controversial. I'd be happy to talk about it through PM, though.
But consider this. Yes, there's tons of proof that certain things in the Bible are moderately to grossly inaccurate. There's pretty much no proof of the existence of God. So why is religion such a powerful force in the world?
Two: Maybe. It depends what you mean by all-powerful. If God is all-powerful in that he can do absolutely ANYTHING, then he can say "fuck logic" and simply make it work that way.
In a few minutes or maybe a couple hours, I will begin writing my essay about determinism and why I strongly believe it to be the most "correct" model for reality. In the meantime, I might just create a blog so I can learn the formatting of TL.net since it's been so long since I've dabbled in BBCode that my gears are embarrassingly rusty.
For personal reasons, I need to state the following to instill in myself a sense of panic:
I met a girl from Asia who has proven to me superdeterminism is correct and she demonstrated it.
The SHA512 digest of her first name (in all lowercase) is 5b313aa8c820d8efca9f9538b5b7b4b99a89c6622906d05dfccc5bd39aab428a46f6d88405c39fa32b5f5cb1d3249458ddde50b3faf5b0744690b8eda46aa288
(Don't worry if this doesn't make sense -- I am trying to make myself panic.)
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kIAf3.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/gods/gifs/brahma-hindu-god.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/DeterminismXFreeWill.jpg/800px-DeterminismXFreeWill.jpg)
