|
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. |
[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.
|
On March 06 2012 23:26 Gulf wrote:Show nested 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.
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 23:50 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +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 23:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 23:07 TheSun wrote:On March 06 2012 22:38 gyth wrote: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.
|
On March 06 2012 23:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 22:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 06 2012 22:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 22:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 06 2012 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 06 2012 08:14 HailPlays wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo 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!" I've already said, that particular view is semantics, back in the first several pages in fact: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=317894¤tpage=8#155 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.
|
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo 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 02:05 RoberP wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
Holy shit, this should become the new High Thread. I wanted to post something but the thread has gone on for too long now, I'll have to read more
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
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.
Article for your reference http://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/
|
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.
|
|
|
|