|
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. |
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 10:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:04 UmiNotsuki wrote: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 10:15 Tachyon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Lalalaland34481 Posts
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 10:18 UmiNotsuki wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:08 travis wrote:On March 06 2012 10:04 UmiNotsuki wrote: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.
This site actually gives a good basic understanding of quantum physics:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pd/configurations_and_amplitude/
|
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.
#2 and #5. Please tell me your thoughts.
|
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 10:34 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 10:44 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +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 10:49 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:34 liberal wrote: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 10:49 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:34 liberal wrote: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.
|
Canada11222 Posts
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 10:51 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 10:44 Lixler wrote: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. Show nested quote +
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
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
